2019 PLP 1284 (SCMR)
STATE through ANF Peshawar — Appellant Versus OLUFEMI — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1284 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | STATE through ANF Peshawar — Appellant Versus OLUFEMI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1284 (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 2019 PLP 1284 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1284 (SCMR) (STATE through ANF Peshawar — Appellant Versus OLUFEMI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tariq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 17.6.2004 passed by Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2003)
S. 9(c)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A
Destruction of recovered narcotic
Accused, a foreign national, was found with 25 kilograms of heroin
Trial Court convicted accused under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life
High Court proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that contraband allegedly recovered was destroyed in violation of procedure provided under S. 516-A, Cr.P.C.
Plea of prosecution that destruction of the contraband under magisterial supervision ruled out possibility of any foul play and thus strict non-compliance with the suggested procedure under S. 516-A, Cr.P.C. would not vitiate culpability of accused
Held, that the accused had already left Pakistan (after his acquittal) and examining the vires of the arguments of the prosecution in absence of the accused would be merely an academic discussion without consequential impact
In the event of reversal of the impugned view of the High Court, a cumbersome procedure of accused's extradition would be far from convenient
Much water had flown under the bridge, and the contraband had since been destroyed
Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Olufemi, a Nigerian national, respondent herein was surprised by contingent of Anti Narcotics Force, Haripur; he was found with 25 kilograms of heroin and sent to face trial before a learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, camp at Abbottabad; returned a guilty verdict; he was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along side to the tune of rupees one million or five year' S.I. in default thereof with benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Peshawar High Court vide impugned judgment dated 17.6.2004, however proceeded to acquit him from the charge primarily on the ground that, contraband allegedly recovered was destroyed in violation of procedure provided under section 516 A of the Code ibid, vires whereof are being disputed with considerable vehemence on the ground that destruction of the contraband under magisterial supervision ruled out possibility of any foul play and thus strict non-compliance with the suggested procedure would not vitiate respondent's culpability, otherwise firmly established through massive evidence, it is concluded by the learned standing counsel. We would abstain to examine the vires of arguments raised before us in absence of the respondent, a Nigerian national, reported to have left Pakistan as in his absence the exercise would be merely an academic discussion without consequential impact; for yet another reason we find it inexpedient to interfere with the impugned judgment as in the event of reversal of the impugned view, a cumbersome procedure of respondent's extradition would be a process far from convenient. Much water has flown under the bridge; the contraband has since been destroyed with respondent no longer within the Realm. Appeal is dismissed. MWA/S-26/SC Appeal dismissed.