MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J. - Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Special Judge CNS in case vide FIR No. 25, dated 3.11.2003, under Section. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Police Station ANF, Rawalpindi. He has now filed instant petition for the same relief.
Gravamen of the charge, as it appears from the FIR, is that on 3.11.2003. Force Commander ANF- Rawalpindi, received an information that one Shafiq,' the narcotic dealer, would reach Afridi Adda.
Pirwadhai Road, Islamabad. On this information, raid was conducted and at about 7.15 p.m. a person reached there on a black yellow cab holding a 'crate' in his both hands. The raiding party on pointation of the informer, intercepted him with 'crate' and on his search charas weighing 7- kilograms and heroin weighing 2-kilograms were recovered. Separate parcels of sample and the contraband recovered were prepared. Chemical Examiner reported in positive. Petitioner after remaining on physical remand has since been remitted to judicial lock-up.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the ANF record.
Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that percentage worked out by the Chemical Examiner, vide his report dated 17.8.2005, regarding heroin was 24.55% and regarding charas, it was estimated 3.89%, would bring the case of the petitioner within the mischief of Section 9(b) of the CNSA, 1997, entitling him to the concession of bail, has not impressed us because under section 9 of the Act (ibid) it is. Provided that whoever will contravene the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the said Act, will be punished according to the quantity of narcotic, drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance as per its sub-section (a), (b) or (c) and it clearly depicts that it is the quantity of contraband recovered which will determine the punishment of the offence and not the percentage thereof, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Our this view further gets strength from provisions of Section 3 of the Act (ibid), where under calculation of percentages is to be made about liquid preparations and the contraband recovered from the petitioner being not in liquid form, percentage mentioned by the Chemical Examiner in his report is not relevant to the case of the petitioner. Similarly, Section 18 of the said enactment, provides that quality of the contraband recovered can only be looked into while assessing quantum of fine at the time of decision/conviction to the contravener. This all brings us to hold that a huge quantity of contraband in form of 7-kilograms charas and 2-kilograms heroin, was recovered from the petitioner and the offence committed is covered by Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997, which falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. None of the raiding party had any enmity or malice against the petitioner to falsely involve him in the case. Prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence charged and trial of the case has already commenced. *
4. For the reasons noted both, we are of the considered opinion that no case for bail is made out, hence this petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, in view of dispute urged before us, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months.