Possessing and trafficking of narcotic

2018 MLD 1642 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Possessing and trafficking of narcoticsAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction in

Prosecution case was that 1020 grams of heroin was recovered from accused, out of which 5 grams were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis

Forwarded sample of heroin, when weighed in Laboratory, it transpired to be 2.37 grams instead of 5 grams which showed that complainant/Police Officer, used a faulty scale to measure the weight of recovered heroin

Prosecution, was obliged to prove every bit of its case beyond doubt and was obliged to address the difference of said weight

Recovered quantity of 1020 grams of heroin, was to be reduced in same ratio as weighed by Forensic Science Laboratory

Held, that 483.48 grams of heroin was recovered from accused; which quantity of heroin attracted the provisions of S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Conviction and sentence of accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was set aside and he was convicted under S.9(b) of said Act

Accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 7 months and to pay fine of Rs.13,000.

2015 PCrLJ 1044 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Possessing and trafficking of narcoticAppreciation of evidence

Prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and Mashir of the arrest and recovery, had supported the prosecution case, and there appeared no infirmity in their evidence

Said witnesses did not differ from each other in respect of place of incident, time of occurrence, manner of incident, arrest of accused and recovery of narcotic substance from accused person

Contradictions pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, were minor, and were not fatal to the prosecution case

Defence counsel could not shatter the evidence of prosecution witnesses, who remained in line

Accused did not bring anything on record to show enmity or ill-will on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate them, and foist such large quantity of the charas upon them

Was unbelievable that accused who were taking the truck were not in the knowledge of the material kept therein

Accused were apprehended on the spot along with 49 Kilograms, out of which 100 grams were separated from each packet, and were sent for Chemical Examiner on the same day, and the report of Chemical Examiner was in positive

Prosecution was able to prove its charge against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

Conviction of accused persons by the Trial Court, did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

No ground being available to interfere in the impugned judgment, appeal was dismissed.

2014 PCrLJ 542 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4(4), 5 & 7Possessing and trafficking of narcoticDeclaring accused as Juvenile, and ordering separate trialAccused had claimed that he being juvenile, his trial should be conducted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000Medical Board had given opinion that age of accused was about 20 yearsAlleged incident took place 1 year, 5 months and 21 days prior to the date of medical examinationAge of accused on the date, the alleged offence took place, was about 18 years, 6 months and 9 daysAccused in circumstances, was aged about 18 to 19 years at the time of occurrence

Provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, were to be interpreted liberally; and when two views were possible, one favouring accused had to be taken, particularly qua the juvenility, inasmuch as it could be proved to be helpful for rehabilitation of accused on account of aid of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Accused was entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance and was declared as juvenile; and his trial was ordered to be separated from the case of co-accused and could be sent to the Juvenile Court.

2013 PCrLJ 1773 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9(b) & (c)Possessing and trafficking of narcoticAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inAllegedly 4350 Kgs. charas in the shape of packets, was recovered from the secret cavities of Tanker

Small quantity from each packet, was separated and mixed together; out of the mixture, three samples, each weighing 10 grams, were separated of which one sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis

Record was silent about the number of Packets recovered from the tanker

Weight of said packets was also not known

Prosecution, under the law was under obligation to have first weighed every packet; and then separate a small quantity from each packet; properly sealed and mark them for chemical analysis

Conviction of accused would then be based, subject to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory

Said legal requirements, had not been complied with in the present case

Sample sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis could not be said to be a representative sample in circumstances

Sentence awarded to accused, was bad in law, as only one sample of 10 grams was sent for chemical analysis, and the report thereof was received as positive

Accused, in circumstances, were liable to be held responsible only for 10 grams charas, the offence whereof fell within the ambit of S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and not under S.9(c) of Act

While converting S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 into S.9(b), thereof, sentence of accused was reduced to the one already undergone by them

Fine amount was also reduced from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.10,000.

2013 MLD 894 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Possessing and trafficking of narcoticAppreciation of evidence

Accused could not substantiate their plea that they had been enroped as they had refused to take the complainant for attending a marriage ceremony

Said allegation did not appeal to reason that on mere refusing such demand of the complainant, accused were involved in the case for arranging such a huge quantity; and also enroping the female folk in the case

Accused persons had never been involved in such offences before

Request of counsel for accused for taking lenient view against accused persons being genuine, was acceded to, keeping in view the contradictions regarding the recovery of contraband and sending only one sample out of four slabs separated from each packet, which warranted reduction of sentence

One lady accused was 60 years old

Punishment already served by accused persons, in circumstances, was sufficient to meet the ends of justice; and same was reduced accordingly.