2023 PLP 306 (SCMR)
GULL DIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 306 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa, Yahya Afridi and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ |
| Parties | GULL DIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotics Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 306 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotics Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 306 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa, Yahya Afridi and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 306 (SCMR) (GULL DIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik M. Usman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yaqoob, ASI for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 19.09.2022 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5220-B of 2022)
R. 4(2)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497
Seized narcotics to be dispatched for analysis 'not later than seventy-two hours of the seizure' [Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 'the Rules')]
Non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Rules
Effect
Rule 4(2) of the Rules is directory in nature
Non-compliance of a directory rule would not entitle the petitioner to bail
Ground of non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Rules will not on its own be a sufficient ground to entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. Tariq Mehmood v. State PLD 2009 SC 39; Gul Alam v. State 2011 SCMR 624; Muhammad Sarfraz v. State 2017 SCMR 1874 and Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau PLD 2019 SC 112 ref. Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sidhu, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab along with Farhat Rasool, DSP City, Muzaffargarh and Khalid Azizi, SI/IO for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Faez Isa, J. Notice was issued to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the fact that rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules'), which provides that the seized narcotics be dispatched for analysis 'not later than seventy-two hours of the seizure', was not complied with, as the same was sent after seventeen days.
2. This Court in a number of judgments has held that the said rule is directory, including in the cases of Tariq Mehmood v. State (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 39), Gul Alam v. State (2011 SCMR 624) and Muhammad Sarfraz v. State (2017 SCMR 1874). And, a five-member Bench of this Court, in the case of Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 112) held that the non-compliance of a directory rule would not entitle the petitioner to bail. Though the Tallat Ishaq was a case under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, in our opinion, the stated principle enunciated therein would be equally applicable to cases under the narcotic laws when directory provisions are not complied with. Accordingly, the ground of non-compliance with rule 4(2) of the Rules will not on its own be a sufficient ground to entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that after framing of charge no progress has been made in the trial and the case is not proceeding because the prosecution side is delaying it. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab ('APG') states that as far as the prosecution is concerned it will expeditiously proceed with the case and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the prosecution side abides by the commitment made by the learned APG he will be satisfied and this petition may be disposed of in such terms.
4. The prosecution shall abide by the aforesaid commitment made by the APG and the learned Trial Judge will not entertain any unnecessary requests for adjournment from the prosecution side. With such observations this petition is disposed of. MWA/G-20/SC Order accordingly.