MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence for the possession of 200 grams of heroin. The petitioner, a school teacher, was apprehended red-handed by a police raiding party on March 19, 1999. The trial court had initially convicted the petitioner under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to eight months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's conviction was sustainable given the defense's claim of false implication by the police. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence or material on the record to substantiate the allegation of false implication. Consequently, the Court held that no illegality or infirmity existed in the impugned judgment warranting appellate interference. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and leave to appeal was declined, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
- Does an allegation of false implication by police require substantiation on the record to warrant appellate interference?
- Is a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable when the accused fails to prove police enmity or fabrication?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 29-4-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No,361 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalia under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was dismissed.
2. On 19-3-1999 petitioner while in possession of heroin weighing 200 grams was apprehended red- handed by a raiding police party. The trial Court vide judgment, dated 21-2-2003 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight (8) months plus fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Was also extended to the petitioner.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the judgment impugned. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was a school teacher, had been falsely implicated in the case by the police. Unfortunately, nothing was brought on record to substantiate the false implication of the petitioner by the police. No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment has been pointed out by the learned counsel warranting interference by this Court, therefore, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave to appeal declined accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus State 2015 PCrLJ 30