Citation Name : 2009 YLR 2277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : NASIR KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss.2(g), (h), (t), (u) & 3---Appreciation of evidence---Application for determination of percentage of opium
alkaloids---Dismissal of application---Appeal---More than 8000 unlabelled intoxicating/sedative injections
were recovered at the instance and from the possession of accused---According to the report of Chemical
Examiner, said injections contained opium alkaloids, but the Chemical Examiner had failed to give the
percentage of the opium alkaloids, which was found to be the component of the recovered material---
According to S.3 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Federal Government was required to make
rules prescribing the method with which the percentage of liquid preparations could be calculated for the
purpose of clauses (g) (h) (t) & (u) of S.2 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Provisions of S.3
of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had provided that in case of recovery of any material defined
under clauses (g) (h) & (u) of S.2 of said Act percentage till the framing of the rules by the Government
would be determined in accordance with the Proviso to S.3 of said Act---In the present case while examining
the recovered material, Chemical Examiner failed to give percentage of opium alkaloids, which according
to him were detected in the recovered injections---Chemical Examiner who was under a legal obligation to
find ,out the percentage of the detected opium alkaloids, having failed to do so, appeal against order of
Special Court whereby the application filed by the applicant for the determination of the percentage of
opium alkaloids from the material allegedly recovered from the applicant was dismissed, was set aside and
application of applicant before the Trial Court was allowed.

Citation Name : 2009 PCrLJ 523 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : SHAIR KHAN
Side Opponent : State

Ss. 3, 4 & 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---No direct or circumstantial evidence was available to connect
accused with the commission of the offence---Alleged recovery of narcotic substance was not effected from
the direct physical and conscious possession of accused---Accused was not apprehended by the police with
the alleged recovered contraband Charas---Material contradictions were found in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses who were not worthy of reliance---Manner of arrest of accused and recovery of the
narcotics were highly doubtful---Trial Court had not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its true
perspective and impugned judgment of conviction of the Trial Court was not in conformity with the
provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution case was full of doubts, the benefit whereof would entitle accused
to acquittal---Impugned conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and accused was acquitted of
the charge brought against him in the case and he was set at liberty, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SAEED
Side Opponent : State

---S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 2(g)(h)(t)(u)(za), 3 & 51---Control
of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.4(2)---Bail---Refusal of---Recovery of
Psychotropic substance---Delay of nine days in sending samples to Chemical Examiner---Non-observance
of directory provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Effect---
Allegation against accused/petitioner as mentioned in F.I.R. was that on pointing out by co-accused,
Psychotropic Drug (Buprenorphine) was recovered from his custody---Accused contended that there was a
delay of nine days in sending samples to Chemical Examiner whereas according to rule 4(2) of Control of
Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, samples were to be dispatched to Chemical
Examiner within 72 hours of recovery of contraband, hence belated dispatch of samples had vitiated entire
proceedings against him; that contraband allegedly recovered from accused was in liquid form and
Chemical Examiner was required under S.3 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to determine actual
percentage of recovered drug which was not doll- by Chemical Examiner; that drug was allegedly recovered
in powder form but report of Chemical Examiner showed that drug was in liquid form and that contraband
was openly available in market and was easily accessible to everyone---Trial Court dismissed bail petition
of accused---Validity---Rule 4(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001,
even if bound down Investigating Officer to send samples within specified time, a little delay in sending
samples to Chemical Examiner was of no consequence unless grave prejudice was caused to the accused-
--Mere delay in dispatching recovered contraband to Chemical Examiner was not to make prosecution case
doubtful---Psychotropic substances mentioned in Schedule to Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997,
were not required to be subjected to calculation of percentage as required by S.3 of the Act---Legislature
had deliberately excluded Clause (ZA) from S.3 of the Act for purpose of calculating percentage in liquid
preparations, therefore, S.3 of the Act was not applicable in the case---Recovery of drug in powder form
and its examination in liquid form as mentioned in report was of no consequence as Chemical Examiner
had to examine substance according to permissible test and formula he wished to apply; therefore
conversion of grams into millilitres did not result in violation of any rule of Central of Narcotic Substances
(Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts)
Rules, 2001, were ordinarily directory in nature and not mandatory---Bail applications were decided on the
basis of tentative assessment of material placed before Court and no exhaustive appraisal thereof was to
be undertaken---Persons involved in immoral business of drugs were to be discouraged and Courts were
not to come to their rescue by entertaining their bail petitions on academic questions or by giving them
benefit of bail by adopting favourbale interpretation of statute--At bail stage, legality and technicality of
procedure was not to be dealt with in depth for bail petition was only entertained on the basis of material
available on record---Prosecution had prima facie fully established recovery of lethal drug from possession
of accused and his case was covered by clause (c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and
bar contained in S.51 of the Act, as to grant of bail to accused was fully attracted---Bail petition was
dismissed.
Citation Name : 2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHAIR-UL-REHMAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE and others

---Ss. 2(t)(i)(ii)(iii) & 3---"Poast" or "Doda" by itself cannot be termed as a "mixture" or "liquid preparation"
for the purposes of S.2(t)(iii) or S.3 of the Act, and therefore, in a case of recovery of "Poast" or "Doda"
no ascertainment by a chemical examiner is required regarding quantity of morphine, etc. available in such
"Poast" or "Doda"--Principles.