Nazir Hussain Etc. vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the summoning order passed by the Trial Court without recording evidence, wherein the appellants were summoned despite having been discharged by the Investigating Officer. The core legal question revolves around the legality of summoning accused persons under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prior to the recording of prosecution evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, holding that a Trial Court cannot summon discharged accused persons without recording evidence of prosecution witnesses to determine if sufficient material is available on record. The Court set aside the impugned summoning order and directed the release of the appellants if not required in any other case, affirming the principle that summoning prior to recording evidence based solely on collateral proceedings is legally unsustainable.
- Whether a Trial Court can summon an accused who has been discharged by the Investigating Officer without recording evidence?
- Is an appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 maintainable against a summoning order?
- Can a Trial Court rely solely on the bail matter of a co-accused to summon discharged accused persons without evaluating prosecution evidence?
- Section 48, Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
ORDER KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- This is an appeal against the summoning order so the delay is condoned.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 is maintainable. He further submits that both the petitioners were got discharged by the I.O. Himself and that without recording any evidence, the learned Trial Court while referring to a bail matter of the co-accused has ordered for summoning of the respondents.
Reliance has been placed on "Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. Qudrat Ullah Ruddy and others"
(PLD. 1986 Lah. 256) and unreporting judgment delivered in Appeal/Revision No. 1889 of 2002 titled "Muhammad Asim Lahore v. State". Learned counsel further submits that in the unreported judgment circumstances were of similar nature as that of the present case.
3. Mr. M. Bilal Khan, Additional A.-G. And Legal Advisor of Anti-Narcotics Force concedes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that if after recording evidence of PWs, the learned Trial Court comes to the conclusion that sufficient material is available on record, then it is empowered to summon them.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and haying gone through the two judgments noted (supr), we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 9.10.2002. The appellants are behind the bars. They shall be released from jail, if not required in any other criminal case.