2009 PLP 856 (MLD)
GHULAM ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 856 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 856 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 856 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 856 (MLD) (GHULAM ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)(c)
Though there was alleged recovery of 1 Kg and 90 grams of Charas, but it had not been mentioned as to what was position of packets/parcels or pieces when those were recovered nor it was mentioned in F.1. R. that any piece was taken from it for sending it to the Chemical Examiner
Version of prosecution, that entire property was sealed, its identity as Charas, in circumstances was very much doubtful
State counsel had also noted said serious defects on the part of prosecution and was unable to point out as Jo how the substance was sent to the Chemical Examiner
Factual position in respect to detaching the part of the substance for Chemical Examination was missing
F.I.R. had been lodged by A.S.-I. and not the S.I.P. as per requirement of law
Case of accused was on the border line of Ss.9(b) & 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as only 1 Kg. and 90 grams had been recovered
In view of the fact that no effort had been made towards ascertainment as to whether recovered substance was Charas or not, case of accused having become of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
1. Granted.
2. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been involved falsely. He submits that although there is alleged recovery of 1 kg. and 90 grams of Charas but it is very strange that it has not been mentioned as to in what position packets/parcels or pieces were recovered nor it is mentioned in F.I.R. that any piece was taken from it for sending it to the Chemical Examiner. He submits that according to version of prosecution, entire property was sealed, therefore, its identity as Charas is very much doubted. Learned State counsel has also noted the above serious defect on the part of prosecution and is unable to point out as to how substance was sent to the Chemical Examiner. After going through the contents of F.I.R. it is noted 'that the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is correct as the factual position in respect to detaching the part of substance for chemical examination is missing. It has also been noted that F.I.R. has been lodged by A.S.-I. and not the S.I.P. as per requirement of law. The case of the applicant is on the border line of 9(b) and 9(c) and 1 kg. and 90 grams have been recovered. Keeping in view that no effort has been made towards ascertainment as to whether the recovered substance was Charas or not. I find the case of further enquiry and the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./G-45/K Bail granted.