2013 PLP 1538 (SCMR)
NADEEM ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1538 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | NADEEM ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1538 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1538 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1538 (SCMR) (NADEEM ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmed Moha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmud ul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-4-2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3753-B of 2013.)
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(a) & 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Narcotic contained in different packets/ parcels mixed together before being sent for chemical analysis
Allegation against accused was that he had booked cartons for cargo, and upon search of said cartons heroin weighing 945 grams was recovered from 26 elevators and 420 grams of heroin was recovered from the other 10 elevators
Pleas of accused were that entire heroin recovered from 26 elevators was mixed together and only 10 grams were sent for chemical analysis; that heroin recovered from other 10 elevators was also mixed together and only 10 grams was sent for chemical analysis; that in such circumstances the total heroin which was sent and tested by the chemical examiner would come only to 78.34 grams and he could only be convicted for the heroin which was sent and tested for analysis in view of the law laid down in the case of Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380); that offence against him in such circumstances would fall within the mischief of S. 9(a) and not S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Judgment to which reference was made by accused i.e. Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380) was a criminal appeal, wherein the entire evidence had been led
Trial in the present case was yet to commence and it would be presumptuous on part of the accused to infer that the prosecution would lead evidence only to the extent of the weight to which he had made reference
Prosecution was free to lead further evidence in the present case and to request the court that it be allowed to send the entire narcotics allegedly recovered from the accused for chemical analysis
Accused was refused bail in circumstances
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused. Ameer Zeb v. State PLD 2012 SC 380 distinguished. Sahibzada Anwar Hameed, Special Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 24 dated 7-9-2012 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station ANF, Sialkot wherein the allegation is that on the fateful day he came to the office of the Skynet cargo, Sialkot to book two cartons and that when he was apprehended and the cartons were opened heroin weighing 945 grams was recovered from 26 elevators and 420 grams of heroin was recovered from the other 10 elevators. According to learned counsel the entire heroin recovered from 26 elevators was mixed together and only 10 grams was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis and similarly the heroin recovered from the other 10 elevators was also mixed and only 10 grams was sent for analysis. The total heroin which was sent and tested by the office of the Chemical Examiner, in the afore-referred circumstances, he added, would come only to 78.34 grams and the petitioner can only be convicted for the heroin which was sent and tested for analysis in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380). The offence in these circumstances, he further added, would fall within the mischief of section 9-A of the C.N.S.A. and not 9-C.
2. Learned Special Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force opposed the petition and submitted that the case relied upon by the petitioner is an appeal case; the evidence is yet to be recorded and the trial Court or the prosecution can always lead additional evidence with a view to render complete assistance to the court.
3. We have considered the submissions made and find that the judgment to which reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner was in a criminal appeal when the entire evidence had been led and the court after considering the said evidence came to the conclusion as reflected in para 8 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- "
8. For the purposes of clarity and removal of confusion it is declared that where any narcotic substance is allegedly recovered while contained in different packets, wrappers or containers of any kind or in the shape of separate cakes, slabs or any other individual and separate physical form it is necessary that a separate sample is to be taken from every separate packet, wrapper or container and from every separate cake, slab or other form for chemical analysis and if that is not done then only that quantity of narcotic substance is to be considered against the accused person from which a sample was taken and tested with a positive result."
4. Admittedly the trial has yet to commence and it would be rather presumptuous on the part of the petitioner to infer that the prosecution would lead evidence only to the extent of the weight to which reference has been made by petitioner's learned counsel. It is always open for the parties and in this case for the prosecution to lead further evidence and to request the court that it be allowed to send the entire narcotics allegedly recovered from the petitioner for chemical analysis.
5. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed and leave refused. MWA/N-11/SC Petition dismissed.