2006 PLP 800 (SCMR)
ZULFIQAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 800 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 800 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 800 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 800 (SCMR) (ZULFIQAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taki Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th July., 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order, dated 11-1-2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2003).
S. 9(c)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Section 103, Cr.P.C. having been specifically excluded under the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, non-citing of any witness from the public was not fatal to the prosecution case
Prosecution did not claim that the heroin at the time of recovery was contained in separate packets, rather the same was alleged to have been contained in' a shopping bag and only one sample of one gram heroin, therefore, was sufficient for chemical analysis
Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.
The petitioner after having been found in possession of 1120 grams of heroin was challaned, charged and convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo S.I. for two months with the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeal of the petitioner failed, hence present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no independent witness of recovery has been cited and that only one gram of heroin has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis which makes the case of the petitioner doubtful and also entitled him to the reduction of sentence: None of his contentions is having force. Section 103, Cr.P.C. has been specifically excluded under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the non-citing of any witness from the public is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is not the case of prosecution that the heroin was contained in separate packet rather it was alleged to have been contained in a shopping bag and only one sample of one gram heroin is sufficient for chemical analysis.
3. We see no force in this petition, therefore, leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./Z-7/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave to appeal refused.