| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 1373 2012 SLD 1373 2012 SCMR 119 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Review Petitions Nos. 55 and 111 of 2009 in Criminal Appeals Nos.28 of 2004 and 625 of 2006, decision dated: 24-11-2009
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Review Petitions Nos. 55 and 111 of 2009 in Criminal Appeals Nos.28 of 2004 and 625 of 2006, decision dated: 24-11-2009
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MEHMOOD HASSAN HARVI
VS
THE STATE through D.G., A.N.F.
Law:
Section:
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Recovery of narcotics---Review of Supreme Court ---On the basis of spy information a raid was conducted and Charas weighing 400 kilograms was recovered---Accused was arrested and he was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years but High Court enhanced the sentence to imprisonment for life---Supreme Court in under review set aside the sentence awarded by High Court and restored that of Trial Court---Plea raised by accused was that the conviction originally recorded by Trial Court as well enhanced by High Court was based on no evidence, therefore, of acquittal should have been recorded---Validity---At the time of passing under review, the Bench of Supreme Court, while taking into consideration and that too without discussing implication of a letter, did not consider other material available on record---Prosecution was duty bound to establish the case but if the prosecution evidence produced before Trial Court and on the basis of which the sentence had been enhanced by High Court, the court should have taken into consideration all evidence available on record---Supreme Court recalled its earlier and appeal filed by accused would be deemed to have been pending for rehearing of the same---Petition was allowed. Barkat Ali v. Arshad Ali and 2 others 1994 SCMR 492 rel. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Criminal R.P. No. 55 of 2009). Niaz Ahmed Rathore, Advocate Supreme Court/P.-G., A.N.F. for the State (in Criminal R.P. No. 55 of 2009). Nemo for Respondents (in both cases). Date of hearing: 24th November, 2009. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed with the prayer that order dated 12-3-2009 passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 28 of 2004 and 625 of 2006 may kindly be reviewed in the interest of justice and conviction be set aside. 2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that in pursuance of secret information that the petitioner, Mehmood Hassan Harvi, in consultation with international 'smugglers had smuggled…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492