SCMR 2008

2008 PLP 1011 (SCMR)

THE STATE — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ SALEEM and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.245-L of 2005, decided on 22nd July, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 1011 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ
Parties THE STATE — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ SALEEM and others — Respondents
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 2008 PLP 1011 (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 2008 PLP 1011 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1011 (SCMR) (THE STATE — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ SALEEM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Representation

  • Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2005.
  • Tariq Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court with Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the order of Lahore High Court, dated 23-3-2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.307 of 2004).

Ss. 37, 39 & 19

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

Leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, to examine as to whether the application filed by the Director-General, Anti-Narcotic, Force, seeking forfeiture of the property of the accused in terms of Ss.37, 39 read with S.19 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not competent and the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the same after the conviction of the accused, because the trial of co-accused was still pending for final decision before the same Court against his co-accused. Tariq Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court with Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated March 28, 2005 passed by the learned High Court, Lahore setting aside the order, dated February 16, 2004 whereby an application from the Director-General, A.N.F. seeking forfeiture of property of the convict-respondent initiated within the contemplation of provisions of section 39(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as C.N.S.A.) has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the respondent' confessed guilty under section 9(b) of the C.N.S.A. for keeping in his possession 1 Kg. of heroin. A case in this respect was registered vide F.I.R. No.25 of Police Station A.N.F., Lahore on 5th August, 1998 falling within the meaning of section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. As a result whereof trial Court convicted him of sentence of 3 years and 6 months. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. After the conviction of the respondent, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution within the contemplation of sections 37, 39 read with section 19 of the C.N.S.A. seeking freezing of the property and their forfeiture in favour of the Federal Government. The respondent contended the proceedings, inter alia, objecting the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the same but the objection was overruled vide judgment dated February 16, 2004 and this order was challenged by respondent No.4 in the High Court. The learned High Court set aside the order holding that application filed by the prosecution through its Director-General was not maintainable because the trial Court itself should have passed the order for freezing of property at the time of conclusion of the trial.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have examined the impugned judgments carefully.

4. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine as to whether the application filed by the Director-General in terms of sections 37, 39 read with section 19 of the C.N.S.A. was not competent and the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the same after the conviction of the respondent because as far as the trial of the co-accused is concerned that was still pending for final decision before the same Court against his co-accused. Appeal arising out of this petition be prepared on the same record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if need be. As a short point is involved in this case, therefore, the office is directed to fix the appeal in the 1st week of October, 2005. The respondent is directed to attend the Court personally at the time of hearing of the appeal. N.H.Q./S-145/SC Leave granted.