SCMR 2006

2006 SC MR 1183 (PLP)

AMEER NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Jail Petition No.177 of 2004, decided on 9th March, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 SC MR 1183 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
Parties AMEER NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 SC MR 1183 (PLP)?

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 SC MR 1183 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 SC MR 1183 (PLP) (AMEER NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Representation

  • Malik M. Kabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 9th March, 2006.
  • Muhammad Aslam Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
  • 7. We have heard Malik M. Kabir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Aslam Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of State at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 24-2-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No.145/J of 2002).

S. 9(c)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Reappraisal of evidence

Accused could not refer to any misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or any glaring irregularity in the impugned judgment of the High Court

Prosecution had fully established its case by bringing on record the evidence of prosecution witnesses and positive report of Chemical Examiner

Accused had failed to prove the case of fabricated recoveries or false implication and did not opt to appear as his own witness under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. but tendered in evidence photo copies of medical reports of hospital in his defence

Petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, being devoid of force, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Muhammad Aslam Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

This petition is directed against judgment, dated 24-2-2004 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No.145-1 of 2002 filed by petitioner Ameer Nawaz was dismissed, the conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,00,000 or in default thereof six months S.I. awarded by the trial Court was maintained. He was, however, granted benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. towards computation of sentence.

2. Precisely, the case of prosecution against petitioner is that on 7-4-2000 at about 5-40 a.m. petitioner was apprehended along with Car No.STH-1639 by raiding party consisting of Lt.Col. Manzar Akbar, Joint Director, Anti-Narcotics Force, Lahore and others near Shobra Hotel, Lahore. From the secret cavities of car 80 packets of Charas each weighing one kilogram were recovered. One gram of Charas was separated from each packet which were made into single parcel as sample for the purpose of chemical examination and the rest was put in two bags and were sealed. From personal search of petitioner Rs.4,225 Pak Rupees, golden ring, I.D. Card, photo copy of I.D. Card, driving licence and registration book of car were recovered and such recovery memo. was prepared.

3. After usual investigation, petitioner was sent up to face trial whereas his co-accused namely, Shakeel and Raaz Muhammad were declared as proclaimed offender. 4.? At trial in order to establish its case prosecution examined Muhammad Samar, A.S.-I. (P.W.1), Abdul Ghafoor, Constable (P.W.2), Amir Hussain Toor, constable (P.W.3) and Muhammad Riaz Sumro (P.W.4). Learned prosecutor also produced Chemical Examiner's report which was positive in nature.

5. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. petitioner denied the allegation and claimed that he was arrested from the room of Shobra Hotel where he was staying with his family. While replying to question No.6 he replied as under:-- "I used to writ letters against the officials of A.N.F. to their higher authorities due to that in revenge the A.N.F. officers trapped inc in this case falsely. The real culprits were let off and I was substituted. On 7-4-2000 1 was staying in a room of Shobra Hotel, Lahore with my wife and children wherefrom I was arrested. I was not capable of driving any type of vehicle nor I have any Driving Licence. The Driving License produced is fabricated document. The P.Ws. deposed against me because they were subordinate to A.N.F. officials and they made statements against me on oath under the influence and pressure of their Higher Officers. I am a Gazetted Officer and was posted at Accountant-General's Office at Peshawar in Grade-17. I was heart patient and had come to Lahore with my family for my check up from Punjab Institute of Cardiology. I am innocent in this case." He did not opt to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. but tendered in evidence photocopies of medical reports of hospital in his defence.

6. On conclusion of trial, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

7. We have heard Malik M. Kabir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Aslam Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of State at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

8. Though argued at length yet learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer any misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or any glaring irregularity in the impugned judgment. Prosecution has fully established its case by bringing on record the evidence of above said P.Ws. and positive report of Chemical Examiner. Petitioner has failed to prove the fabricated recoveries or false implication. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.B.A./A-34/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.