2006 PLP 1961 (MLD)
IMTIAZ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1961 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IMTIAZ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1961 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1961 (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: 2006 PLP 1961 (MLD) (IMTIAZ 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
Wherever an accused was able to show the cogent reason to indicate possibility of his false involvement in the case, it could be considered to be a good case for grant of bail
Police Officers were as good witnesses as anybody else could be at bail stage of the Case.
S.156
Investigating agency though competent to enter into re-investigation of any incident, but the Court of law was not to act as ipsi dixit of police and that subsequent report would always be subject to record of evidence in the case.
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9
Contents of F.I.R. and mashirnaina of recovery and arrest, clearly mentioned that 20 K.Gs. of Charas were allegedly recovered from the possession of accused in the shape of "Patties/Plates", but the number of said Patties/Plates, was not mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the mashirnama
F.I.R. and mashirnama stated that quantity of 250 grams Charas was taken out of entire recovered material for the purpose of chemical analysis, but without making any mention as to whether same was taken out separately from each of the Patties/Plates, or only from one of them; there was no mention whether or not the sample was taken out from the Patties separately; and if taken out separately it was not mentioned that same was ever sealed separately by the recovery officer
Judgment & Decree
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the question needs to be resolved as to whether the 20 kilograms Charas, allegedly recovered were in the exclusive possession of the applicant suffice it to say that the prosecution case is that a document was also recovered from the possession of the applicant, which, prima facie, indicates the vehicle in question having been purchased by applicant. It is a settled principle of law that wherever an accused is able to show the cogent reason to indicate possibility of his false implication in the case in question, it may be considered to be a good case for grant of bail, otherwise police officers are as good witnesses as anybody else could be at this stage of the case, there is no material to give such an indication from the side of applicant. It is a settled principle of law that investigating agency will otherwise be competent to enter into the re-investigation of any incident; but then it is also a settled principle of law that the Court of law is not to act as ipsi dixit of police, and that subsequent report will always be subject to record of evidence in the case. The point in favour of the accused/applicant, involved in the case, is that the contents of the F.I.R. and the mashirnama of recovery and arrest clearly mention that 20 kilograms of Charas were allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant in the shape of "Patties/Plates" but the number of patties/plates is not mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the mashiranama. Same further stated that a quantity C of 250 grams Charas was taken out of the entire recovered material for the purpose of Chemical Analysis, but without making any further mention as to whether the same was taken out separately from each of the patties/plates, or only from one of the same, and with no further mention if the simple was taken out from the patties separately; so also, if taken out separately, there is no mention that the same was ever sealed separately by the recovery officer. In PLD 2004 SC 856 Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted accused of the said reported case with the observations that the narcotics material having been recovered in the shape of rods and the sample not having been taken out of the same, separately, no conclusive finding could be recorded that all the rods were of contraband narcotics; hence the proper and final finding is yet to be recorded as to all the "patties" being of Charas and not otherwise. For the above reason, the applicant is hereby admitted to bail with two sureties, each in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rupees five lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./I-21/K Bail granted.