A detailed review and summary of the relevant case laws regarding the authority of borderline cases under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), along with case laws on bail in narcotics cases based on borderline situations, and the requirements under Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):
(1) Authority of Borderline Cases u/s 9C CNSA
2015 SCMR 735
Case Summary: This case elaborated on the sentencing guidelines for narcotic offenses, particularly where the quantity of the narcotic substance lies between 1 kg and 10 kg. The Supreme Court clarified that the punishment should be greater than seven years but less than fourteen years, considering the mitigating circumstances and the exact quantity involved.
2015 SCMR 1077
Case Summary: The court dealt with the sentencing for narcotics offenses and underscored the necessity of proportionality in sentencing, taking into account the precise quantity and quality of the narcotic substance found in possession of the accused.
2012 SCMR 573
Case Summary: This case provided guidance on the interpretation of borderline quantities of narcotics, emphasizing a balanced approach in sentencing while ensuring that justice is served without being excessively harsh.
PLD 2012 SC 380
Case Summary: The Supreme Court addressed issues related to narcotic offenses, including the interpretation of borderline cases, and the importance of ensuring that procedural safeguards are adhered to during trials.
(2) Case Laws on 9-C CNSA - Bail in Narcotics Cases on the Ground of Borderline Case
2017 YLR 874
Case Summary: The High Court granted bail to an accused in a narcotics case, recognizing that the quantity involved was borderline and that there were substantial reasons to believe that further inquiry was needed.
2017 YLR 1282
Case Summary: This case involved the granting of bail where the quantity of narcotics was borderline, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need for further investigation.
2016 SCMR 1424
Case Summary: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting bail where the narcotic quantity was at a borderline level, highlighting the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused in borderline cases.
2016 P.Crl.J 1075
Case Summary: The court granted bail considering the borderline quantity of narcotics and the procedural lapses during the investigation.
2016 P.Crl.J 831
Case Summary: Bail was granted due to the borderline nature of the narcotics quantity involved and the existence of plausible defense arguments.
2016 P.Crl.J 1315
Case Summary: The court provided bail to the accused in light of the borderline quantity of narcotics and the procedural irregularities observed during the investigation.
(3) Case Laws on Section 103 Cr.P.C. and Bail
1997 SCMR 947
Case Summary: The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 103 Cr.P.C. (which mandates the presence of witnesses during searches) entitles the accused to bail, as such non-compliance raises serious doubts about the legality and credibility of the search and seizure.
2015 SCMR 735
Case Summary: In this case, the court granted bail to an accused found in possession of 3437 grams of charas, noting that while a search warrant was obtained, local elders were not associated as required, and the charas was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused, but rather from a room he was residing in.
2019 YLR 2798
Case Summary: The court granted bail to the accused, emphasizing that despite procedural compliance, the recovery was not made from the exclusive possession of the accused and other procedural lapses provided sufficient grounds for bail.
These case laws illustrate the judiciary's approach towards borderline cases under Section 9-C of the CNSA and the importance of procedural compliance under Section 103 Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases.