' AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.---In all above titled appeals and revision petition a common question as to whether "poppy capsules" fall within the definition of opium and punishable under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has arisen and Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the Full Bench to answer the question.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate vehemently contended that definition of opium as assigned under section 2(t) has not to be read in isolation but with the other definitions provided in the Act. He further contented that according to section 2(v) "opium poppy" has been defined as plant of the species papaver sonmiferum L, whereas according to sub-clause (w) of section 2 "poppy straw" means all the parts except seeds of the opium poppy after mowing, therefore; the definition of poppy straw in sub-clause (t) of section 2 is overlapping and absurd and the Court is empowered to provide casus omissus. He further contended that it was a mistake by legislature as preparations are not cognizable which contained not more than 0.2 per cent morphine. He next argued that section 4 is not attracted, as it relates to the cultivation or gathering of opium poppy. He supported minority view of the judgment reported in PLD 2005 Lahore 440 and according to the learned counsel the same was based on sound reasoning.
' On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor supported the majority view of the above referred judgment and contended that in order to determine as to whether the appellants have violated provisions of section 6 punishable under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 definition as contained in section 2(t) is to be taken into consideration ignoring the definition of opium poppy and poppy straw mentioned in sections 2 (v) and 2 (w) of the- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgments reported in 2003 SCMR 54, 2003 MLD 1475 and PLD 2006 Supreme Court 61.
3. We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel. Study of legislation proscribing opium reveals that in the year 1878 Opium Act, 1878 was promulgated, wherein original definition of opium was as follows:-- "Opium includes also poppy heads, preparation or admixture or opium or intoxicating drugs prepared from the poppy."
' However; after enactment of Dangerous -Drugs Act, in the year 1930 by virtue of section 40 and Schedule-II of that Act definition of opium as contained in Opium Act, 1878 was altered, palpably to bring it in conformity with definition of opium provided in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, which reads as under:-- "(i) The capsule of the poppy.
(ii) The spontaneously coagulates juice of such capsules which has not been submitted to any manipulation other than those necessary for packing and transport.
(iii) Any mixture with or without neutral materials of any of the above forms of opium."
' Thus capsule of poppy has been included in the definition of opium from the very beginning. That is why when in the year 1956 West Pakistan Opium Rules, 1956 were framed "Poppy heads" was defined as "capsules of the poppy plant whether juice from them has been extracted or not'. Rule 6 of the said Rules permitted for having in possession at any one time without licence poppy heads in any quantity not exceeding one seer or decoction of poppy heads known as "post" in any quantity not exceeding 1/2 seer. These Rules remained enforced till repeal of Opium Act 1878 vide section 78 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite amendment of the definition of "opium" in both the Acts i,e, Opium Act, 1878 and Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 by Act XXVII of. 1957 (Opium and the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1959) enforced on 15-2-1966 in the following manner:--
(i) Poppy straw that is to say, all parts of poppy plant (papaver somniferum or any other species of papaver) after mowing, not being seeds, from which narcotic can be extracted.
(ii) The spontaneously coagulated juice of capsules of poppy which has not been submitted to manipulation other than those necessary for packing and transport; and
(iii) Any mixture, with or without natural materials of any of the above forms of opium."
' But does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 percent of morphine or a manufactured drug as defined in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.
' It is manifest from above Clause (i) that the definition was enlarged to include all parts of poppy plant, that is to say stalk, leaves, flowers in addition to poppy capsules and intention of legislature to enlarge the definition is very much borne out from the above said clause.
' It may further be observed that on one side opium is being illicitly used as an intoxicating drug, on the other hand its legitimate uses are medical. For many years morphine, one of the main alkaloids derived from the milky fluid found in the capsules of the opium poppy (papaver somniferum), has been the physician's mainstay for the relief of severe pain, therefore; Rules were framed in order to enable cultivation and possession of opium for medical purpose. In Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 restriction was imposed upon cultivation of poppy save in accordance with rules made under subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act, which prohibition remains enforced even after promulgation of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, however; cultivation or gathering of any such plant or any portion thereof exclusively for medical, scientific or industrial purposes under a licence was saved under the proviso to section 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and in this regard rules namely Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001 have been framed. The legislature in the Act, 1997 maintain definition of opium as assigned to it in Opium Act, 1878 and Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 and brought therein vide Act XXVII of 1957, except that the words "from which narcotic can be extracted" were deleted from Clause (i) of the definition. The presumption and legal intention is that each and every clause in a statute has been inserted for some useful purpose and, therefore, the instrument must be read as a whole to ascertain both its intent and general purpose and also the meaning of each part. When a Court is called upon to construe the terms of any provision found as a statute, the Court should not confine its attention only to the particular provision which falls for consideration but the Court should also consider other parts of the statute which throw light on the intention of legislature and serve to show that the particular provision ought not to be construed as if it stood alone and apart from the rest of the statute. In construing a statute as a whole the Court seeks,to achieve two principle results, to clear up absurdity and ambiguities in the law and to make the whole of the law and every part of it harmonious and effective. It is equally settled that the meaning of the words used in any portion of the statute must depend upon the context in which they are placed.
4. It is also well-settled rule of interpretation, followed by time and sanctioned by Authority that the meaning of an ordinary word is to be found not so much in strict etymological propriety of language, nor even in popular use, as in the subject or occasion on which it is used and the object which is intended to be attained. But, if, however, two constructions are possible, then the Court must adopt that which will ensure smo oth and harmonious working of the enactment and eschew the other which will lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well- established provisions of existing law nugatory. Additional words to a context could only be supplied when examination discloses that certain words have been inadvertently omitted from a statute and such words are necessary to complete the sense but should be supplied in a statute only when the omission is palpable and the word omitted is clearly indicated by the context. In the case of Khan Chand Tiloke Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1966 Punjab 423) Full Bench of Punjab High Court held that it was recognized principle of interpretation that for the purpose of giving a meaning to the clear and definite intention to the Legislature some words may in suitable cases be read in the provisions to avoid reducing the provisions to an absurdity. But the power to add words should not be exercised unless there is almost a necessity in order to give the section workable meaning much less when the language of the section does not justify the addition. Maxwell says "Notwithstanding the general rule that full effect must be given to every word, if no sensible meaning can be given to a word or phrase or it would defeat the real object of the enactment, it may, rather it should be eliminated."
5. As already observed by passage of time the definition of "opium" was altered, amended and enlarged in order to bring other parts of "poppy" into it but poppy capsules always remained an essential part of the definition, therefore; omission of words "from which narcotic can be extracted" appears to be intentional in order to expand the definition as poppy capsule even after incision and extraction of juice do contain alkaloid such as morphine and codeine etc, that is why at the time of framing Rules under the Opium Act, 1878 the "poppy heads" was defined as "capsules of the poppy whether juice from them has been extracted or not" and such Rules remained applicable even after altered definition of opium as brought by Act XXVII of 1957 and possession thereof exceeding specified quantity without permit was prohibited. As already stated only such words which are necessary to complete sense of the context and appears to have been inadvertently omitted, could be supplied when the word omitted is clearly indicated by the context but the definition assigned to opium in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act is a complete definition in itself and omission of above mentioned words do not render it incomplete in sense, therefore; it would be unsatisfactory and unsafe to seek meaning of words used in it by referring to definition clause of Opium Act, 1878 and Dangerous Drugs Act. It was observed in the judgment reported in AIR 1962 Punjab 256 that if the meaning put on those words does not do violence to the object and purpose of the Act and the language is plain and unambiguous the Court will not be justified in putting different meaning on the word merely because a sister, legislature has in its own wisdom thought to enlarge the scope of those words.
6. As regards definition of "opium poppy" in section 2 (v) confining it to the plant of species papaver somniferum. L and of "poppy straw" assigning to it meaning as all the parts, except the seeds of the opium poppy after mowing, it may be noted that in section 2 (t) while defining opium a different definition to poppy straw has been given than that as contained in section 2 (W) and in the said clause the word "poppy plant" has been used instead of "opium poppy" which has been defined in section 2(v). It is well-settled rule of drafting that the some word or term is used in an Act in the'same meaning throughout, and, where, in a particular place it is necessary to use the same term in a different sense from that which it bears in the rest of the Act, a special definition is added (AIR 1958 Allahabad 679 referred). It may further be observed that in the definition of "Narcotic drug" besides opium the word "poppy straw" has been separately mentioned. If the legislature has any intention to have the same meaning for the word "poppy straw" throughout, then there was no necessity to mention it separately in the definition of narcotic drug and its insertion in said definition would become superfluous. Casus omissus cannot be readily inferred nor can it be supplied unless it is clearly necessary to do so because presumption and legal intention is that each and every clause in a statute has been inserted for some useful purpose.
7. Adverting to the argument that from the time immemorial poppy capsules are being used by the local Hakeems' for medical purpose and "Pinsareian" are keeping those capsules in their shops, it may be noted that at the time of promulgation of law about opium the legislature had taken care for their need and possession was permitted in specified quantity under a permit/licence. Even after the enactment of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Rules namely Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse Controlled Chemical, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001 have been framed to regulate cultivation, acquisition and supply under a licence. If any person acquire possession of poppy straw or poppy capsules after mowing without a licence issued by the competent authority, his possession would be F culpable under section 6 of the Act, 1997 punishable under the Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 9 in accordance with weight of such stuff irrespective of percentage of morphine, because sub-clause (iii) of section 2(t) relates to the mixture prepared, with or without natural material, of any of the form of opium defined in sub- clauses (i) and (ii) which is an independent clause not affecting definition of opium as contained in clauses (i) and (ii), therefore; it is not essential for the prosecution to prove percentage of morphine present in such capsules or poppy straw.
' In view of what has been discussed above, in our considered view, poppy capsule of any species of papaver is included in the definition of opium as assigned under section 2(t) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and possession thereof is punishable under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, The reference is answered accordingly.
' The office is directed to fix all these matters on top priority basis before the Division Bench, so that they could be disposed of expeditiously. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.