Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The appellants in this case were convicted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for their involvement in the possession and transport of narcotics. On March 18, 2004, Customs Officials intercepted a bus and recovered 60 kg of charas in the form of sleepers and 18 kg of raw charas, which were wrapped in cellophane. After investigation, the appellants were charged, and their trial led to a conviction with a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The appellants appealed the conviction, claiming discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence regarding the collection of samples from the recovered substance. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's evidence regarding the collection of samples from the recovered narcotics was accurate and consistent. -----2- Whether the appellants’ sentence should be reduced based on the discrepancies in the evidence and their claims of false implication. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court reviewed the case, considering the discrepancy in the prosecution’s procedure for collecting samples from the narcotic substances. The recovered charas was in the form of sleepers, but the sample was taken from the entire sack and not from each individual sleeper, as required for an accurate analysis. This procedural flaw led the Court to doubt the validity of the entire recovery, as strict adherence to the procedural requirements is necessary in narcotic cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the appellants' sentences to the time already served, acknowledging the procedural error. The fine of Rs. 100,000 was upheld, and the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was applied, maintaining remission for the time already spent in custody. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hashim Versus The State (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 856)

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA, 1997) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, in relation to the seizure of narcotics on 18-03-2004. Customs officials, based on secret information, intercepted a bus and recovered a large quantity of charas (60 kg of backed charas and 18 kg of raw charas). The appellants, who were the owner and conductor of the bus, were arrested, while the driver was acquitted. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each, and in default, six months’ imprisonment. The appellants filed appeals, and one appellant filed a separate appeal challenging the conviction. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution properly followed the legal procedure in collecting and handling the samples of the recovered narcotics. -----2- Whether the discrepancy in the collection of samples affects the credibility of the evidence, and consequently the appellants' conviction. -----3- Whether the sentences imposed under the CNSA, 1997 should be reduced in light of procedural discrepancies. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Evidence Collection: The court found a discrepancy in the procedure for collecting the samples of the narcotic substance. The sample was taken from the sacks as a whole, rather than from each individual sleeper of charas. This procedural lapse was significant as the CNSA, 1997, requires strict adherence to the procedure for handling evidence, particularly in drug-related cases. Given this issue, the court found the prosecution's case to be doubtful, as the proper sampling method was not followed. The court relied on a precedent where similar lapses led to the quashing of convictions. --Sentence Modification: The court maintained the conviction of the appellants under Section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone by the appellants due to the procedural shortcomings in evidence collection. The fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each was upheld, with the appellants facing additional imprisonment of six months in case of default. --Presumption and Justice: The court emphasized the importance of following strict procedures in narcotic cases to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The discrepancy in the sampling process resulted in a modified sentence, reflecting the court's judgment that the appellants' sentences should not be as severe given the lack of full procedural compliance by the prosecution. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hashim Versus The State (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 856): The court relied on this precedent to support its decision that failure to follow proper procedures in drug cases can render the prosecution’s case doubtful.

Summary: Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)-------Si 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9 & 199---Constitutional petition---Placing nameof petitioner on Exit Control List (ECL) due to investigation being conducted by AntiCorruption Establishment into allegations of massive corruption levelled against him---Validity---Placing of petitioner's name on ECL would amount to interference in his libertyand movement during pendency of such investigation, which was against fundamental rightsas guaranteed by the Constitution---High Court directed authority to remove petitioner' namefrom ECL.Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and 3 others PLD 2010Lah. 230 rel.

Summary: Bail granted --- Where a case fell within non-prohibitory clause the concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases. ---- Brief facts, petitioner had issued cheque of 20million which was dishonoured. Bail was granted in circumstances. Reliance: 2009 SCMR 1488

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending