'IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this revision petition, the petitioner, who is one of the accused in case F.I.R. No,9 of 2001 dated 27-11-2001 registered under section 9(c) read with 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has called in question the charge-sheet framed by the learned trial Court on 26-3-2004 on the ground that the requisite copies of the documents required under section 265-C, Cr .P.0 . Were not supplied to the accused and the same should have been framed in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 27-11-2001 the Regional Director ANF, Punjab, Lahore received spy information that International Smugglers of Narcotics, namely, Haji Noor Islam, Malik Pervaiz , Musthaq Malik alias Black Prince, Ahmad Radowala, Mian Idress, Ahsan Pervaiz and Malik Abdul Rauf were present in house No,2 Allah Bakhsh Colony, Shamshadabad, Multan for smuggling huge consignment of Charas and on conducting raid the said gang could be apprehended whereupon a raiding party under the command of Major Shamshad Hussain Dar, Acting Joint Director was constituted which conducted raid on the said house and found five persons, namely, Malik Pervaiz, Mian Muhammad Idrees, Ahmad Pervaiz, Abdul Rauf and Abdul Rehman while present there. Out of them Malik Pervaiz, Mian Idrees and Ahsan Pervaiz were busy in packing Charas in big cartoon. On checking the said cartoon found to be containing six bundles of Charas and each bundle was measuring 20 kilogram. On pointation of the said accused persons the raiding party further recovered 269 bundles of Charas measuring 20 kilogram each and as such total recovered Charas came to be 5500 kilogram. Twently grains of Charas was separated from each bundle by the Investigating Officer for chemical analysis and made into sealed parcel besides the total recovered narcotic substance. The Investigating Officer also took into possession Honda Civic Car No,42/LXL, Honda Sunny No,8383/MNX, white colour Nisan Sunny 1941/MNR and Suzuki Carry Van No,9594/MNB light blue colour. Hence this case was registered and during the investigation of the case it came to light that as per record of Dryport relating to Custom Department a consignment of 5 tons Charas was already exported under Bill Export No,02335 dated 11-6-1998 by the accused, namely, Mian Idrees, Ahmad Rado Wala, Pervaiz Malik, Rashid Malik alias Rashid Mauzzam and Haji Noor Islam under the guise of Multan Fabrics in the wake of preparation of fake documents thereof.
3. After the investigation incomplete challan was submitted in the learned trial Court on 16-3-2002 and then Supplementary challan was submitted on 27-5-2002 while declaring Ahsan Pervaiz accused as approver under section 337, Cr.P.C. The accused were summoned and on 14-12-2002 the copies of the documents as required under section 265-C were supplied to them. Then on 26- 3-2004 all the eleven accused including the petitioner were charge-sheeted. In the meanwhile, Malik Rashid Mozaam co-accused moved an application under section 365-K, Cr.P.C. For his acquittal which was dismissed and Writ Petition No,362 of 2003 filed before this Court was also dismissed on 6-4-2004. The said co-accused also filed an Crl. Revision No,140 of 2004 before this Court challenging the vires of charge framed against him and this Court vide order dated 18-5- 2004 on revealing that charge-sheet was framed in his absence declared it to be illegal and quashed it to the extent of him alone in the light whereof the learned trial Court has again charge- sheeted him on 8-6-2004. Thereafter, this Crl. Revision was filed before this Court on 16-6-2004 by the petitioner.
4. In spite of repeated calls none has turned up on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute this revision petition.
5. On the other learned Prosecutor of ANF has contended that the charge was framed while fulfilling all the formalities and emphasized that the petitioner along with the co-accused is moving different applications with intent to linger on the trial.
6. Heard and record perused. The record shows that copies as required under section 265, Cr.P.C.
Were supplied to the accused persons including the petitioner on 14-12-2002 while charge-sheet was framed on 26-3-2004 but during this period no application was moved by the petitioner before the learned trial Court that requisite copies were not supplied to him. Moreover, the provisions of section 265-D, Cr.P.C. Do not provide that the charge against the accused could only be framed in the presence of their learned counsel and it is not clear from the contents of this petition that as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner by framing of the charge. This criminal revision is totally misconceived we are in agreement with the learned Prosecutor appearing on behalf of ANF that the petitioner-accused are moving different applications before the learned trial Court as well this Court in order to linger on the trial and flout the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of the case within four months.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this Cr1. Revision which is dismissed.