Pakistan Case Law
2020 SCMR 1000

Asmat Ali vs The State

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2020 SCMR 1000
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No. 1205 of 2019
Date2020-05-04
Judge(s)Umar Ata Bandial and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
Authored byQazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Asmat Ali, for the possession of 9600 grams of cannabis, an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was intercepted while driving a truck, and the contraband was recovered from the vehicle's tool box. Following a conviction by the trial court, which sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, the High Court upheld the decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the recovery and forensic analysis of the narcotics were sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the testimony of the recovery witnesses was consistent and credible, and that the forensic report conclusively established the narcotic nature of the substance. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's own statement and the evidence presented failed to contradict the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings, emphasizing that the administration of criminal justice was properly observed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the recovery of narcotics warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a forensic report confirming the narcotic character of a substance satisfy the evidentiary requirements for conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a petitioner's own statement on oath be used to corroborate prosecution evidence regarding the possession of contraband?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
narcotic possessioncriminal appealrecovery witnessesforensic reportconcurrent findingssafe administration of criminal justice

ORDER

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---During an haul up, Asmat Ali, petitioner, on the wheel of truck bearing No. Kohat-C-1417 was intercepted by a contingent of Police Station Cantt. Kohat; 9600 grams of contraband, forensically confirmed as cannabis, recovered from the tool box of the vehicle; learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 24.10.2018 returned a guilty verdict; convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to 10-years' RI with a fine of Rs.100,000/-, upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.09.2019, vires whereof, are being assailed on a variety of grounds.

2. Heard.

3. We have examined the statements of recovery witnesses i.e. Muhammad Ali, SHO (PW-1) and Anwar Ali Head Constable/Incharge Check Post (PW-2); they are in tune with each other with no apparent motive to hound the petitioner on a trump up charge; substantial quantity of the contraband rules out a manipulated recovery. Petitioner, in his bid to disproof the charge, admitted most parts of the transaction on the eventful day except for an obvious denial regarding the contraband; appearance of his defence witness Diswar Ali (DW-1) on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner District Lower Orakzai to suggest exit of the vehicle on 7.10.2017 from Boya Check Post fails to contradict petitioner's interception at the check post. On the contrary, petitioner's own statement on oath, obliquely confirmed by his witness, puts him in the saddle. Alleged insufficiency of "protocol" mentioned in the forensic report is beside the mark; it conclusively establishes the narcotic character of the substance with sufficient details regarding the test carried out. Conclusions concurrently drawn by the courts below, being in accord with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice, do not call for interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.