Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJ 440 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : IFTIKHAR AHMAD

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 2(q)---Control of Narcotic Substances
(Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, Division II,
Schedule V---Possession of narcotic drugs---Recovered contraband under the name of "Acetic Anhydride"
fell within the ambit of "manufacture drug" as defined under S. 2(q) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,
1997, as well as notified in the official gazette and Division II, Schedule V, Control of Narcotic Substances
(Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001---Possession
of recovered chemical "Acetic Anhydride" being a primary substance used for production of heroin was
manifest contravention of the provisions of S. 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Accused was
arrested red-handed on the spot and huge quantity of "Acetic Anhydride" was recovered from boot of car
which was in his exclusive possession and control---Positive Forensic Science Laboratory report and
statements of recovery witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C. had substantiated the version of complainant---
Nothing was on record to show any ill-will or enmity of the prosecution witnesses against accused---On
tentative assessment of evidence, reasonable grounds existed which prima facie connect accused with
commission of offence---Bail was refused accordingly.

Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 1993 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SARWAR

S. 497(5)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 2(d)(ii)---Prohibition (Enforcement of

Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 4--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Possession of narcotic---Petition
for cancellation of bail, dismissal of---Accused persons had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the High
Court mainly because it was yet to be determined as to whether the offence allegedly committed by them
attracted the provisions of S. 2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or those of the
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---Supreme Court declined to attend to such aspect of the
case at present stage and held, that no allegation had been levelled against the accused persons regarding
misuse or abuse of the concession of bail---Investigation of the case had already been finalized and physical
custody of the accused persons was no longer required at present stage for the purposes of investigation-
--No occasion had been found to interference in the bail granting order of the High Court---Petition for
leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2017 PCrLJN 204 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAVED
Side Opponent : State

S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d) & 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking
narcotics---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Contents of the FIR, as well as the report of the Chemical
Examiner, did not reveal that when alleged substance was recovered, was containing flowers or fruiting
top and it was nowhere mentioned that the cannabis plant (Bhung) was with seeds or not, which was
against the provisions of S.2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Whether the contraband
was a simple plant or not, was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Article 4
of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, prima facie, would favour the accused---Contraband
recovered, neither was described in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, nor in the Prohibition
(Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---Case of accused would become one of further inquiry, entitling him
for the grant of post-arrest bail---Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : TAIMOOR KHAN
Side Opponent : State

S. 2(t)---'Opium' or 'opium derivatives'---Process by which consumable opium was derived from opium
poppies stated.

Citation Name : 2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : TAIMOOR KHAN
Side Opponent : State

S. 2(t)---Dried/baked 'opium'---Two groups of Alkaloids found in dried opium---Morphine, codeine and

thebaine (first group)---Isoquinolines, such as papaverine and Noscapine (second group)---Details of two
groups of alkaloids found in dried opium and their use in manufacturing narcotic drugs stated.
Citation Name : 2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : TAIMOOR KHAN
Side Opponent : State

Ss. 2(t), 2(w) & 2(x)---"Poppy straw", definition of---Definition of "poppy straw" (as it presently stood)
under S. 2(t) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was misleading being vague and absurd---
Government and the Legislature may take guidance from the international conventions and expert research
opinions to amend definition clauses in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 clearly drawing a
distinction between "pure opium", "pods" and "straws" including the latex of the poppy plants to categorize
which one was potential narcotic substance and which did not cause intoxication. [Minority view]

Citation Name : 2016 PLD 378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MOMIN KHAN
Side Opponent : State

S. 2(s)---Warcotic drug'---Scope---No bifurcation or specification existed in Control of Narcotic Substances

Act. 1997 in respect of narcotics as to Charas or Heroin.

Citation Name : 2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : TAIMOOR KHAN
Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c), 2(t), 2(w) & 2(x)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 , R. 6---
Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---'Crushed poppy heads' recovered from
accused persons---Chemical Examiner's report not clearly and legibly mentioning percentages of Meconnic
Acid, Sulphuric Acid, Porphyroxin, Alkaloids, Morphine and Codeine in the sample---Gross negligence on
part of Chemical Examiner [Minority view]---Accused persons applying for re-examination of sample by
another Laboratory but subsequently abandoning such plea---Presumption that accused persons
apprehended result of re-examination of sample adverse to them---Appeal against conviction was
dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 974 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Side Opponent : State

Preamble, Ss. 2(k)(s)(za), 9(c) & 16---Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss.23 & 28---Criminal Procedure Code
(V of 1898), S.221---Possessing or trafficking narcotics---Recovery of alcohol, beer and acid---Framing of
charge---Alcohol, beer and acid, were recovered from the vehicle and FIR under Ss.23 & 28 of the Drugs
Act, 1976 was lodged against accused---Application of accused filed under S.221, Cr.P.C. for framing
charge under S.16 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having been rejected by the Trial Court---
Validity---Recovered liquid, which had been identified as 'Hydrochloride Acid (HCL)', used as chemical
regent in laboratory experiments, did not fall within the definitions of "controlled substance", "narcotic
drug" and "Psychotropic substance" as provided in S.2(k)(s)(za) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,
1997---Recovered liquid not falling within the mischief of S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,
1997, nor coming under any definition of the contraband item/substance, order passed by the Trial
Court/Special Court, whereby application of accused filed under S.221, Cr.P.C. was rejected, was set aside-
--Trial Court was directed to alter the charge and to frame the same for an offence punishable under S.16
of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thereafter to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with
law.

Citation Name : 2012 MLD 770 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. NASREEN BIBI
Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c), 21 & 2(t), (v), (w)---Appreciation of evidence---Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was fully
competent, in given circumstances, to conduct raid and seize the narcotics---Section 21 of the Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, any violation thereof was not fatal to prosecution
case---Requirement to obtain search warrant could be dispensed with where a quick action was required
to be taken---Delay in sending the recovered narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner for analysis could
not be fatal in the absence of an objection regarding the same having been tampered with---Poppy straw
and poppy heads included all parts of the poppy plant---"Phakki" (post) recovered from the accused was a
narcotic substance as defined in Ss.2(t), 2(v) & 2(w) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---
Law did not require sending the whole narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner, only a small quantity
thereof would be enough to prove that the entire recovered material was contraband---Both the recovery
witnesses were consistent on the point of time, date and place of raid, search, recovery of "post" from the
accused, preparation of sample and its dispatch to the Office of Chemical Examiner---Investigating Officer
had clarified that persons present at the place of recovery had refused to become witnesses in the case---
Police Officials were as good witnesses as public witnesses, until and unless defence would establish some
specific enmity or malice against them---Non-association of any witness from public, therefore, was not
fatal to prosecution case---Report of Chemical Examiner was positive---Conviction and sentence of accused
were upheld in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1954 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN
Side Opponent : State

S. 2(t)(i)---"Opium"---Meaning---Poppy straw---Definition of "Opium" under S. 2(t)(i) of Control of Narcotic

Substances Act, 1997, has been enlarged to include all parts of poppy plant, that is to say, stalk, leaves,
flowers in addition to poppy capsules---Poppy straw cannot be excluded from the definition of "opium".

Citation Name : 2011 PCrLJ 1953 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : GADA ALI
Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 2(c), 20, 21 & 51(2)---Possession of
narcotics---Bail, refusal of---Accused according to the F.I.R. was found to be in possession of contraband
"charas", if not in his own capacity, at least in the capacity of an "associate" within the meaning of S.2(c)
of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Contention that the premises from where the "charas"
was recovered and seized did not belong to accused could not be looked into at the bail stage, particularly
when the burden lay on the accused to prove that the said premises did not belong to him---Matter being
that of urgency, dispensing of obtaining the warrants was justified, otherwise the attempt to raid would
have been failed and the chance of recovery of huge amount of "charas" could have been totally lost---
Sections 20 and 21 of the Act being not mandatory and only directory in nature, strict non-adherence
thereof was not fatal and the raid was not illegal---Police employees were competent like any other
independent witnesses and their testimony could not be disregarded merely on the ground of their being
such employees---Huge quantity of contraband "charas" weighing 379.5 kilograms being involved in the
case, the same was not a fit case for grant of bail to accused, as mentioned in S.51(2) of the Act---Accused
had been apprehended on the spot with a big quantity of "charas"---Bail was declined to accused in
circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1692 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAFAR IQBAL
Side Opponent : State

Ss.9(c) & 2(s), (t), (v) & (w)---Possessing narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Counsel for the accused
after having argued the case for his acquittal had confined himself for reduction in sentence of accused in
view of the report of the Chemical Examiner---Twenty K.G. Poppy Heads had been recovered from the
possession of accused---Sample of ten grams of the substance sent to the Chemical Examiner was found
to be "Crushed poppy heads" which could be used to cause intoxication, as the same had traces of Morphine
and Codeine---Under S.2(s) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, 'narcotic drug' meant Coca
Leaf, Cannabis, heroin, opium, poppy straw and all manufactured drugs---Poppy straws were also included
in the definition of 'opium' as provided under S.2(t)(i) of the said Act---Under S.2(w) 'poppy straw' were
shown all parts except seeds of opium poppy after mowing---Poppy heads or poppy straw thus were
narcotic drug and offences relating to them were punishable under the Act---However, poppy heads having
traces of Morphine and Codeine, recovered from the accused, could not be equated with the actual
substance popularly known as "Opium" or "heroin" etc. which contained much higher quantity of Morphine-
--Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to accused were consequently maintained, but
his sentence of fine was reduced from Rupees 2,00,000 to Rs. 50,000 only in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2009 YLR 1632 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : State

Ss.2(s)(t) & 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---475 kilograms Poppy straw containing Poppy seeds were
recovered from the possession of accused who was responsible for the same---Poppy straw was part of
opium---Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 would come into play in circumstances,
with regard to possession of narcotic drug psychotropic substance or controlled substances---Accused
having rightly been convicted and sentenced, his appeal was dismissed.
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 : 2008 YLR 1784 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MASUD AHMAD
Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(t)(iii) & 9---Bail, grant of---Definition of
"opium" as given in clause (iii) of subsection (t) of S.2 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provided
that the 'poast' could only be considered, narcotic substance, if same contained 0.2 per cent of morphine-
--Report of Chemical Examiner revealed no such percentage and it was yet to be determined whether,
according to the report of Chemical Examiner, the case against accused fell within the purview of S.9(a)
(b) or (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which could only be determined by the Trial Court
after recording evidence and receiving percentage report from the Chemical Examiner---Accused, was
admitted to bail in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAJABAT ALI SHAH
Side Opponent : State

S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d)(ii) & 9(c)---Bail, grant of---Further
inquiry---Alleged material recovered from accused was sent to the Chemical Examiner and. according to
his report, entire recovered material was "Shang"---Contention of counsel for accused that "Shang" was
not hemp as defined in S.2(d)(ii) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had made the case of accused
one of further inquiry---Accused was behind the bars since long and his further detention in the lock-up
would not serve an beneficial purpose---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : FAZAL MUHAMMAD

---Ss. 2(t) & 9---Opium---Poppy capsules---Poppy capsule of any species of papaver is included in the
definition of `opium' as assigned under S.2(t) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and
possession thereof is punishable under 5.9 of the said Act.

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : FAZAL MUHAMMAD

---S. 2(t)---Opium Act (I of 1878), Preamble---Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930, Preamble---Opium---
Definition assigned to opium in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is a complete definition in
itself and omission of the words "from which narcotic can be extracted" does not render it incomplete in
sense, therefore, it would be unsatisfactory and unsafe to seek meaning of the words used in it by referring
to definition clause of Opium Act, 1878 and Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930---If the meaning put on the said
words does not do violence to the object and purpose of the Act and the language is plain and unambiguous,
the Court will not be justified in putting different meaning on the' words merely because a sister Legislature
has in its own wisdom thought to enlarge the scope on those words.
 Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI
Side Opponent : State

---S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9 & 2(d)---Prohibition (Enforcement of
Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4---Bail, grant of---F.I.R. memorandum of recovery and the Chemical
Examiner's report did not specify as to whether the substance allegedly recovered from the possession of
accused was the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant or not, as to whether the same excluded
the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops or not and as to whether resin had been extracted
from the recovered substance or not---Requirements of section 2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances
Act, 1997, thus prima facie were not fulfilled so as to attract the provisions of the said Act---Allegation
against the accused regarding recovery of "Bhang" weighing 10 kilograms from her possession, fell within
the scope of Article 4 of 'the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which carried a maximum
sentence of two years' R.I.---Accused was a woman and nothing was to be recovered from her---Bail was
allowed to accused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : FAZAL MUHAMMAD

---S. 2(t)---Opium Act (I of 1878), Preamble---Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930, Preamble---Opium---
Definition assigned to opium in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is a complete definition in
itself and omission of the words "from which narcotic can be extracted" does not render it incomplete in
sense, therefore, it would be unsatisfactory and unsafe to seek meaning of the words used in it by referring
to definition clause of Opium Act, 1878 and Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930---If the meaning put on the said
words does not do violence to the object and purpose of the Act and the language is plain and unambiguous,
the Court will not be justified in putting different meaning on the' words merely because a sister Legislature
has in its own wisdom thought to enlarge the scope on those words.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI
Side Opponent : State

---S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9 & 2(d)---Prohibition (Enforcement of
Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4---Bail, grant of---F.I.R. memorandum of recovery and the Chemical
Examiner's report did not specify as to whether the substance allegedly recovered from the possession of
accused was the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant or not, as to whether the same excluded
the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops or not and as to whether resin had been extracted
from the recovered substance or not---Requirements of section 2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances
Act, 1997, thus prima facie were not fulfilled so as to attract the provisions of the said Act---Allegation
against the accused regarding recovery of "Bhang" weighing 10 kilograms from her possession, fell within
the scope of Article 4 of 'the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which carried a maximum
sentence of two years' R.I.---Accused was a woman and nothing was to be recovered from her---Bail was
allowed to accused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : FAZAL MUHAMMAD

----Ss. 6, 9 & 2(t)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemical,
Equipment and Materials) Rules; 2001---Percentage of morphine present in poppy capsules or poppy straw
not to be necessarily proved by prosecution---Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of
Abuse, Controlled Chemical, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, had been framed to regulate
cultivation, acquisition and supply under a licence---If any person had acquired possession of poppy straw
or poppy capsules after mowing without a licence issued, by -the competent Authority; his possession
would be culpable under S. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, punishable under the clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of S.9 in accordance with weight of such stuff in respective of percentage of morphine,
because sub-clause (iii) of S.2(t) of the said .Act related to the mixture proposed, with or without natural,
material; of any of the form of opium defined in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) which is an independent clause not
affecting definition of `opium' as contained in clauses (i) and (ii) therefore it is not essential for the
prosecution to prove percentage of morphine present in poppy capsules or poppy straw.

Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 1595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : State

---S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d)(ii) & 9(c)---Bail,- grant of---
Further inquiry---Alleged material recovered from accused was sent to Chemical Examiner and according
to the report, entire recovered material was "Bhang" which was not hemp as defined in S.2(d.)(ii) of Control
of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Such fact had brought case of accused within the ambit of further
inquiry---Accused were behind the bars since long---Challan had been submitted in the Court, but there
was no material progress in the trial---Detention of accused could not be allowed as in criminal
jurisprudence there was no concept of punishment before conviction.
Citation Name : 2006 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : JAVED HAYAT
Side Opponent : State

---Ss. 74, 48, 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 & 32---Superdari of the seized vehicle---Two persons, in the present
case, claimed to be joint owners of the seized vehicle and their claim was based in that regard upon a
Registration Book which was not controverted---Nobody else had asked for superdari of the seized vehicle
till date---Owners of the vehicle were not accused persons in the relevant criminal case and nothing had
been recovered from their possession in the said case---Nothing was available on record of investigation
of the relevant case so far showing that the owners had any knowledge that the accused person would use
their vehicle for committing any offence relating to narcotics---Law would not allow putting the onus on
such person claiming the vehicle, to prove their lack of knowledge in that regard---Narcotic substance
recovered from the accused person in the case was allegedly recovered from his physical possession
(concealed in a plastic belt fastened by accused around his waist under his shirt) and the same had not
been recovered from any secret Chamber, cavity or compartment, etc. of the vehicle that he was statedly
driving---Vehicle being driven by the accused, in circumstances, could not lawfully have been seized by the
relevant officer upon recovery of narcotics from physical possession of that accused---Vehicle in question
was not being used for transporting the recovered narcotics and as a matter of fact, according to the
prosecution's own case, the said vehicle was being used only for transporting the accused person---Seizure
of the relevant vehicle was not only unnecessary but also unwarranted under the Control of Narcotic
Substances Act, 1997---Bar contained in S.74 of the said Act was, thus, inapplicable to the present case
and Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application seeking superdari of the said vehicle by
claimants (owners).
Citation Name : 2006 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : JAVED HAYAT
Side Opponent : State

--Ss. 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74---Superdari of seized vehicle---Analysis of Ss.2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23,
26, 32 & 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Implied situations in the context of the Control
of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which may make permissible seizure of a vehicle or conveyance in a case
of narcotics detailed---Vehicle used by an offender merely for going to or leaving the place of occurrence
or a vehicle used for mere transportation of the accused person, under the general law, cannot be taken
into possession by the police as case-property; there is no reason why the same principle may not be
followed in cases of narcotics except those cases where the special situations apply and seizure of a vehicle
is made permissible by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Principles.

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.

Citation Name : 2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : KHAIR-UL-REHMAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE and others

----Ss. 2(t) & 76---Opium Act (I of 1878), S.2(i)---Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930), S.2(e)---Prohibition
(Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Schedule---Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance (VI of
1995), S.2(r)---"Opium"---Definition of "opium" contained in the earlier laws had been altered and the
words "from which narcotics can be extracted" have been omitted by the Legislature in S.2(t)(i) of the
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Section 76, Control, of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 gives the
provisions of the said Act an overriding effect over all other laws for the time being in force and therefore,
the earlier definitions of "opium" contained in the earlier laws are not relevant for the purposes---Preamble
to the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 confirms the fact that through the said legislation the
legislature intended to consolidate and "amend" the earlier laws holding the field in respect of narcotic
substances---Principles.
Citation Name : 2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHAIR-UL-REHMAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE and others

----S. 2(s))(t)(w)(v), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9---Poast or Doda, being apart of a poppy plant, falls within the
definition of "opium" and, therefore, the same has to be treated and accepted as "narcotic drug" for the
purpose of S.2(s), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---"Poast" or "Doda", both in its natural and
crushed forms, is a narcotic substance within the purview of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997-
--Exceptions--Principles.

Citation Name : 2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : KHAIR-UL-REHMAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE and others

---S. 2(t)---Poast---What exactly is' called Poast. In the local parlance Poast is the name given to that part
of a poppy plant which has the shape of a basket, sack or pouch and it contains the seeds of such plant.
This natural pouch or bulb made of the skin of the plant is meant by the nature to hold and protect the
seeds of the plant contained therein. In some. parts of the country this natural pouch of the poppy plant is
also known as Doda. The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 calls this part of a poppy plant as
`capsule' of poppy and this finds a specific mention in section 2(t)(ii) of the said Act. If an unripe capsule
of a poppy plant is given an incision then a fluid oozes out of the same containing meconic acid and a
number of alkaloids including narcotine and morphine which fluid thickens within a short time and becomes
brown in colour and such substance is pure opium. Even ripe and dry capsules of poppy contain morphine
and other alkaloids, i.e. opium, although less in quantity, which can be used for sedative and narcotic
action. Alkaloids can be extracted even from a mature and dry plant of poppy or poppy straw whether it is
in its natural shape or is in a crushed form. However, the seeds contained in a capsule of poppy are free
from morphine. After its mowing every part of a poppy plant, including its capsule/Poast/Doda but excluding
the seeds, is generally called poppy straw and , thus, every Poast/Doda is a part of a poppy straw but all
poppy straw may not necessarily be Poast/Doda because poppy straw can be any other part of the mowed
poppy plant as well, excluding the seeds.
Citation Name : 1998 PCRLJ 2086 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : NASRULLAH
Side Opponent : THE STATE

----Ss. 9, 29 & 21---Appreciation of evidence--- "Controlled substances"---Connotation---" Opium baked"

being covered by the "controlled substances" was cognizable by the Special Court constituted under the
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Since the accused himself had -not disputed the recovery of
illicit articles, prosecution was under no obligation to prove that each bag contained opium and in view of
S.29 of the Control of. Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 it could be presumed, unless and until contrary was
proved, that accused had committed the offence under the said Act---Non-examination of the contents of
the bags recovered from the accused other than the one from which the sample was sent to Chemical
Examiner for analysis, therefore, was not fatal for the prosecution and no, leniency in the matter of sentence
could be shown to accused---Raiding Officer being above the rank of Subedar was competent under S.
21(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to raid the house of accused---Belated despatch of
the recovered material to the Chemical Analyser was of no consequence as the accused had not disputed
the Chemical Analyser's Report---Prosecution case could not be allowed to fail for any technical reason
where offence related to narcotics or smuggling---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in
circumstances.