Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 37

Law: Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930

Section: 35

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 12,188

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S.37---Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930) [since repealed], S.35-C---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 12 & 188---Protection against retrospective punishment---Scope---Conviction and sentence recoded by a foreign court for possessing and distributing heroin---Forfeiture of property in Pakistan---By way of judgment under review, the Supreme Court declared the forfeiture of the properties of deceased-respondent (represented through his legal heirs) to be unlawful and hence set it aside---Plea on behalf of the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) was that the assets of the respondent could also have been forfeited under the provisions of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 ("1930 Act") [since repealed] and it did not matter that section 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 ('the Ordinance') [since enacted as the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997] was promulgated on 07.8.1995 after the conviction and sentence against the respondent in the USA in the year 1993---Validity---Said submission was absolutely misconceived---Section 35-C of the 1930 Act did not envisage foreign conviction, which was for the first time introduced in section 37 of the Ordinance in 1995, hence the offence committed in the USA in the year 1993 could not possibly attract section 37 of the Ordinance of 1995---Such aspect had been dealt with in the judgment under review in great detail and the petitioner (ANF) could not be allowed to re-argue the case in review jurisdiction---No ground was made out for the review of the impugned judgment. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O. XVII, R. 12 & O. XXVIII, R. 3---Counsel misleading the Court---Misrepresentation---Costs, imposition of---Counsel for the review petitioner tried to mislead the Court not once but twice by claiming that present matter had earlier been decided by the Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation---Such claim was not only incorrect but amounted to misrepresentation before the court---Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, subject to costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Order XVII, Rule 12 and Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules,…

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