P L D 2006 Lahore 300 (PLP)

Petitioner was refused post arrest bail by the learned Special Judge C.N.S. in case vide F.I.R. No.25 dated 3-11-2003 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with police station A.N.F. Rawalpindi. He has now filed instant petition for the same relief.

2. Gravamen of the charge, as it appears from the F.I.R., is that on 3-11-2003 Force Commander A.N.F., Rawalpindi received an information that one Shafiq, the narcotic dealer, would reach Afridi Adda, Pir Wadhai Road, Islamabad. On this information raid was conducted and at about 7-15 p.m. a person reached there on a black yellow cab holding a `crate' in his both hands. The raiding party on pointation of the informer, intercepted him with `crate' and on his search charas weighing 7 kilograms and heroin weighing 2 kilograms were recovered. Separate parcels of sample and the contraband recovered were prepared. Chemical Examiner reported in positive. Petitioner after remaining on physical remand has since been remitted to judicial lock-up.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the A.N.F. record. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that percentage worked out by the Chemical Examiner, vide his report dated 17-8-2005, regarding heroin was 24.55% and regarding charas, it was estimated 3.89% would bring the case of the petitioner within the mischief of section 9(b) of the C.N.S.A., 1997, entitling him to the concession of bail has not impressed us because under section 9 of the Act (ibid) it is provided that whoever will contravene the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 of the said Act will be punished according to the quantity of narcotic, drug psychotropic substance or controlled substance A as per its subsections (a), (b) or (c) and it clearly depicts that it is the quantity of contraband recovered which will determine the punishment of the offence and not the percentage thereof as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Our this view further gets strength from provisions of section 3 of the Act (ibid), whereunder calculation of percentages is to be made about liquid preparations and the contraband recovered from the petitioner being not in liquid form percentage mentioned by the Chemical Examiner in his report is not relevant to the case of the petitioner. Similarly, section 18 of the said enactment, provides that quality of the contraband recovered can only be looked into while assessing quantum of fine at the time of decision conviction to the contravener. This all brings us to hold that a huge quantity of contraband in form of 7 kilograms charas and 2 kilograms heroin was recovered from the petitioner and the offence committed is covered by section 9(c) of the C.N.S.A., 1997 which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. None of the raiding party had any enmity or malice A against the petitioner to falsely involve him in the case. Prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence charged and trial of the case has already commenced.

4. For the reasons noted above, we are of the considered opinion that no case for bail is made out, hence this petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, in view of dispute urged before us, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months. N.H.Q./M-127/L Bail refused.