2019 PLP 1314 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1314 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1314 (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 1314 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood 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 1314 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Altaf Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 16.5.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2016)
S. 9(c)
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140
Description of narcotic, discrepancy in
Alleged discrepancy in the description of the contraband recovered, between the complaint and statements of the witnesses went unchallenged during the trial and as such the accused could not claim any benefit thereof in the absence of confrontation within the contemplation of Art. 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
Jail petition was dismissed accordingly. Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Surprised by a police contingent, the petitioner was found in possession of Charas Garda, weighing 1200-grams within the remit of Police Station Naseerabad Rawalpindi on 26-1-2016; upon conclusion of investigation, he was sent to face trial along with forensic report that confirmed the narcotic character of the substance; in the wake of a regular trial, he was returned a guilty verdict by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 17-11-2016; convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to 4-years and 6-months' RI along with fine of Rs.20,000/- or to suffer 2-months' SI in default thereof with benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Petitioner's appeal in the High Court met with no better fate vide impugned judgment dated 16-5-2017 and this brings him to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner despite being at his best has not been able to point out any serious flaw or infirmity that may be viewed as material or substantial in nature in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. An alleged discrepancy in the description of the contraband recovered, between the complaint and statements of the witnesses went unchallenged during the trial and as such the petitioner cannot claim any benefit thereof in the absence of confrontation within the contemplation of Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. No case for interference is made out. Petition stands dismissed. MWA/M-33/SC Petition dismissed.