Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ali Ahmed vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ali Ahmed VS State Ss. 347 & 498---Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022), S.9(1)(3)(D)---Possession of narcotic substance---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Transfer of case from Judicial Magistrate to Special Judge---No notice issued to accused persons---Procedural fairness---Scope---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that 1600 kilograms bhang was recovered from their truck---After completion of the investigation, a report in terms of S.173, Cr.P.C was submitted before the Special Judge, however said Special Judge returned the FIR and directed the SHO for submitting the same before the concerned Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction---In compliance thereof, the Investigating Officer submitted challan/police report before the Judicial Magistrate under Ss.3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---During pendency of the case, application under S.497, Cr.P.C was filed and both the applicants were admitted to post-arrest bail---Later the case was referred to the Special Judge on the pointation of ADPP as bhang was inserted in Section 2(b) of the amended Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2022---Order passed by Judicial Magistrate, reflected that when case was fixed for recording evidence, the ADPP for the State pointed out that the case after the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022 came under CNS Act, as such, the Judicial Magistrate had rightly referred the case to the Court of Sessions/Special Judge under S. 347, Cr.P.C.---Moreover, this was a special enactment and the case become triable by the Court of Special Judge---More so, when the case came under the category of Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022 the Magistrate was not empowered to try the same as it carried punishment beyond its powers---After passing the order by the Judicial Magistrate neither it was challenged by the applicants nor they raised any objection at the time of passing such order---However, counsel for the applicants filed pre-arrest bail before the Court of Session/Special Judge for CNS cases---After hearing the parties, the said bail application was dismissed---If the charges or the nature of the case changed which might result in the accused facing a more severe trial, a show-cause notice was necessary to inform the accused about the change in the Court's jurisdiction and to allow them an opportunity to respond---Even no show cause notice was issued by the Judicial Magistrate to the accused as to why their bail granting order shall not be recalled, which was an essential procedural safeguard to ensure fairness in the criminal justice system as it allowed the accused to challenge the transfer or adjust their defense strategy in light of the more serious charges, which they might face---In this case, the Judicial Magistrate should have issued such a notice to the applicants to uphold procedural fairness---Applicants were continuously attending the Trial Court and there was also no complaint that they had misused the concession of bail---Bail could not be denied to the accused merely for the said reasons---In such circumstances of the case, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants was confirmed.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ali Ahmed vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD