Syed Baqir Raza Naqvi vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1651 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syed Baqir Raza Naqvi VS State S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(1)4(d)---Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance (IV of 2024), Ss. 2(d) & 26---Possession of CBD oil---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Hemp Oil/CBD extracted from cannabis seeds, is expressly excluded from the definition of "cannabis" in S.2(d)(ii) of the Act of 1997---Nominal value of THC derived out of cannabis, a prohibited substance under the Act of 1997, may be present due to adhesion of plant matter to the surface of seed---In the case in hand, the Laboratory Report confirmed the oil to be CBD, however, quantitative assessment of the substance had not been conducted by the Lab to confirm the percentage of "tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" present in the said oil---Cannabidoil (CBD) has neither been defined in S.2 of the Act of 1997 nor included in the Schedule or Tables provided thereunder---Whether the whole liquid recovered from the petitioners was THC, included in clause 83 of Schedule-I as psychoactive substance or THC existed in nominal range, had not been explained in the Laboratory report---Fresh analysis of representative samples conducted by the Laboratory regarding the existence of percentage of THC in the liquid would explain the applicability of provisions of the Act of 1997 i.e. S.9 or S.16 thereof---At present two laws governed the subject---Section 9(1) of the Act of 1997, prima facie, does not provide punishment for possessing "cannabidoil (CBD)"--- On the other hand, under S.2(d) of the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024 ("Ordinance"), cannabinoids have been defined to include canabidoil, development/sale whereof has been made subject to a licence, default or breach whereof is an offence under S.26 of the Ordinance---There was no determination on record regarding the percentage/value of THC present in the CBD---Laboratory in its report had merely suggested that CBD was a Narcotic Drug defined in S.2 of the Act of 1997, but the law spoke otherwise---Question whether express punishment has been provided under S.9 of the Act of 1997 for possessing CBD, or it is to be dealt with under S.16 thereof was also yet to be decided by the trial Court after considering report of the Laboratory---Furthermore, the question, whether the matter fell within the ambit of the Ordinance and was punishable under S.26 thereof had also yet to be considered while framing charge by the Trial Court---Incomplete laboratory report; the question that in presence of two laws i.e. Act of 1997 and the Ordinance on the subject, which one would be applicable in the case in hand; whether the petitioners were liable to imposition of fine under the Ordinance or punishment of imprisonment under the Act of 1997; and, the question that if it was concluded that provisions of the Ordinance were applicable in the case in hand, then what would be the fate of instant criminal case registered and investigated by the Anti-Narcotic Force; were questions which rendered the case of the petitioners as that of further inquiry---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Syed Baqir Raza Naqvi vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1651 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ