THE STATE through D.-G., A.N.F., Rawalpindi vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State through the Anti-Narcotics Force against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which converted the respondent's bail application into a petition for quashment of proceedings and quashed the criminal proceedings against him in FIR No. 41 of 2008 registered under Sections 6 and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the High Court appropriately quashed the proceedings against the respondent based on the lack of incriminating evidence of abetment. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent, an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority on duty at the airport, was merely standing close to co-accused from whose suitcase heroin was recovered. The Court held that mere presence near other accused does not constitute abetment without incriminating evidence. Dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment as just and fair.
- Does the mere presence of an on-duty airport employee near an accused constitute abetment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can the High Court convert a bail application into a petition for quashment of proceedings and quash the FIR where no incriminating evidence exists?
- Is quashment of proceedings justified when the prosecution fails to show any incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the offence?
- sections 6/9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---A criminal case F.I.R. No, 41 of 2008 dated 19-11-2008 under sections 6/9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was registered against three persons including the respondent, at Police Station, A.N.F., Clifton, Karachi, for recovery of heroin weighing 9.5 kgs. From the suitcase of co-accused Ayyaz Ali Baig, at the Departure Lounge of Karachi Airport.
A learned Single Judge of the Sindh High court, Karachi, vide impugned judgment dated 9-1-2009, converted the bail application of the respondent into petition for quashment. Of proceedings and allowed the same. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was guilty of abetment of offence committed by the other accused as he was found in their company. It was further stated that the learned Judge ought not have quashed the proceedings against the respondent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. A bare reading of the F.I.R. And the other material available on record would show that the respondent was an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority who happened to be on duty at the Airport at the relevant time. The mere fact that he was standing close to the other accused would not saddle him with the responsibility of abetment of commission of alleged offence. The learned counsel failed to show us any incriminating evidence against the respondent. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court- is just and fair to which no exception can be taken on hyper-technical grounds.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.
Cited by 6 cases
- LIAQAT ALI Versus State 2026 SCMR 1379
- Ayesha S. Sheikh vs VIII-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Karachi 2021 MLD 100
- Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky and another vs The State and others 2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 250, 2021 SCMR 56
- BHARATand 2 others vs The STATE 2015 YLR 1624
- IZHAR HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR ASLAM PERVEZ, SHO, KHOKHRAPAR POLICE 2014 P Cr. L J 1329
- NAEEM AHMED vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 1237