' Through this criminal revision petition under section 439 read with sections 435 and 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner impugns the order, dated 30-7-2003 of the learned Special Court (C.N.S.), Rawalpindi, through which the petitioner being owner of Iqra Traders, and Javed Saleem son of Shabbir Khan, owner of Arsim Enterprises, were summoned as an accused in the case under sections 9(c), 14 and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered vide F.I.R. No,7 of 2001, dated 30-2-2001 at Police Station A.N.S., Rawalpindi, as the case was made out against the petitioner and Javed Saleem.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though there are powers available to the trial Court to summon the petitioner who was initially a witness in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., but according to him, there is no prima facie case existing on the file against the petitioner.
3. Section 47 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is relevant, which is reproduced as under:- "47 Application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), hereinafter referred to as the Code (including provisions relating to confirmation of a death sentence), shall apply, to trials and appeals before a Special Court under this Act."
' Bare reading of section 173, Cr.P.C. Would show that evidence need not be recorded by the trial Court prior to the summoning of the accused whose names are placed in column 2 of the challan, or have been cited as witnesses. In this regard, I am fortified by the dictum as laid down in the case of Falaksher v. The State PLD 1967 SC 425. This view has been adopted by this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court while interpreting the meaning and scope of sections 173 and 190 of the Cr.P.C. See cases of Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Noor Muhammad and another PLD 1967 Lah. 176 and Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1972 SCMR 335. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Safdar Ali v. Zafar lqbal and others 2002 SCMR 63 has ruled that:- "It is well-entrenched legal principle that 'when a Magistrate takes cognizance under section 190(1)
(b) on a police report he takes cognizance of the offence and not merely of a particular person charged in the report as an offender. He can, therefore, issue process against other persons who also appear to him on the basis of the report and other material placed before him when he has taken cognizance of the case, to be concerned in the commission of the offence when he does so he does not act under clause (c), therefore, section 191 is not applicable'. Mehrab v. Emperor (F.B.)
26 Cr.LJ 181 and Lal Bihari Singh v. Emperor 31 Cr.LJ 55."
4. In pursuance of the order of the High Court, the trial Court examined Ghulam Shabbir, Inspector, Customs as P.W.4 who secured in his possession the lunch boxes and hot pots wherefrom 42 Kgs.
Heroin was recovered, which were brought to Shaheen Cargo, Islamabad Airport Export Hall by three accused, namely, Waseem Safdar, Ghulam Shabbir and Sheikh Muhammad lqbal. Inspector Mubarik Ali Khan, Investigating Officer, was also examined, who secured in his possession on 21-2- 2001 the documents relating to the consignment sent by Abdul Hameed Khan, Deputy Superintendent Custom. The exporter on these documents is shown as Abdul Shahid Qureshi, the petitioner, and clearing agent is shown as Arsim Enterprises owned by Javed Saleem. The Judge, Special A Court (C.N.S.), Rawalpindi on the basis of the statements of these two witnesses and the documents came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under section 9(c) read with sections 14 and 15 of the C.N.S.A. 1997 is made out against the petitioner and his co-accused, namely, Javed Saleem. The learned Judge, Special Court (C.N.S.) had powers to summon any person who was cited as a witness in the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction has been legally exercised by him.
' There is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the trial Court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails, which is dismissed in limine.