M. Bilal Khan, J.--This State appeal has been filed under Section 48 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Munawar Hussain son of Fazal Hussain, Muhammad Rafique son of Haji Habib Ullah, and Abdul Waheed son of Abdul Hafeez, (Respondents Nos. 1 to 3) are facing trial in case FIR No. 152/2001 dated 15.5.2001 registered with Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore for offences under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9-C, 14, 15 and 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
3. The allegation in the FIR was that poppy straw weighing 9013 kg had been recovered from the respondents. The said recovered poppy straw is statedly lying at Customs House Lahore. During the course of trial the State preferred an application under Section 516-A Cr.P.C., praying that permission be granted to obtain samples from the recovered substance in terms of the said section. The said application had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.11.2006 holding that "my learned predecessor with the consent of both the parties passed an order on 7.9.2006 that case property should be produced before the Court because taking up samples would be mere wastage of time so application already stands disposed of in terms of order of my learned predecessor on 7.9.2006. Prosecution is directed to produce the entire case property before this Court alongwith the remaining PWs and file be put up on 13.11.2006".
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. Section 516-A Cr.P.C., inter alia provides that if any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence is a dangerous drug, intoxicant, intoxicating liquor or any other narcotic substance seized, or taken into custody under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (P.O. 4 of 1979), or any other law for the time being is force, the Court may, either on an application or of its own motion and under its supervision and control, obtain and prepare such number of samples of the property as it may deem fit for safe custody and production before it or any other Court and cause destruction of the remaining portion of the property under a certificate issued by it in that behalf. The said section also provides that samples shall be deemed to be whole of the property in an inquiry of proceedings in relation to such offence before any authority or Court.
6. It is on record that the case property is 9013 kg of poppy straw and production of this unmanageable bulk in the Court on each and every date of hearing would cause serious hardship and inconvenience to the' State. It was precisely to meet such a situation that Legislature has allowed samples to be taken by means of incorporating proviso to Section 516-A Cr.P.C., by virtue of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1981. Even otherwise it is on record that in the pre-de novo proceedings, in, the trial the case property i.e. the poppy straw had been produced in the Court and had been exhibited as P-1 while recording statement of Pervaiz Khan Shahid PW-1.
7. M/s. Junaid Razzaq. and Sh. Muhammad Akbar, the learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively have not been able to show as to what prejudice would be caused to the said respondents by allowing samples to be taken especially when the respondents/accused have denied the ownership or possession of the allegedly recovered poppy straw. Insistence of the learned trial Court on production of this monstrous pile of poppy straw on each date of hearing would negate the very purpose of Section 516-A Cr.P.C.
8. Resultantly we allow this appeal and while setting aside the order of the learned trial Court dated 2.11.2006 accept the application of the State/appellant dated 28.7.2006 moved before the learned trial Court.