Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns concerning the systemic failure of the police in the fight against trade in narcotics beyond its most vulnerable participants, observing that prosecution massively target “carriers” of drugs – mainly from disadvantaged backgrounds – while the main authors remain intact.
The observations came in a 17 -page written judgment written by judge Athar Minallah, in which the court acquitted two people who had been sentenced as soon as possible in life imprisonment in a drug case.
The decision was issued by a bench of three members led by judge Minallah and including judge Irfan Saadat Khan and judge Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan.
“There are several law enforcement agencies conferring powers to understand and pursue those involved in crimes relating to narcotic drugs, including a special agency, the anti-narcotic force established under the 1997 law,” notes the verdict.
The judgment calls into question the effectiveness of these institutions, in particular when seen against the scale and the omnipresence of the drug threat.
“The inhabitants of Pakistan must endure the financial burden to maintain these organizations responsible for the application of the laws responsible for the expensive task to eradicate the threat of the narcotic drugs of the company. Have they achieved their designated objective? The answer is a” no “categorical”, he said.
The Court also deplored the growing propagation of narcotics across the country, declaring: “The evil of narcotic drugs has spread throughout the country and it cannot be disputed that it has reached educational establishments where they are freely accessible.”
The bench stressed that even in the few cases where arrests are made, prosecution often does not lead to convictions, which raises other doubts about the integrity and professionalism of investigation processes.
“The organizations responsible for the application of laws did not go beyond the arrest of the carriers and, in many cases, did not even prove guilt.
“They must be held responsible for their omissions and breaches committed during the surveys or during the pursuit of a case. Future generations cannot be exposed to the threat of narcotic drugs simply because the several law enforcement agencies are entrusted to the expensive duty to release the company from this misconduct to carry out effectively or are considered complicated.
“The male stops with the federal and provincial governments, as the case may be, because they are ultimately responsible for the overall and general supervision of the law enforcement organizations. Responsibility does not end with the executive power of the State because the judicial power is also responsible for ensuring that the trial is carried out in a fair manner and that a judicial decision is taken.
“This case also shows that the court of first instance had failed to exercise its powers devolved under the law.
“We therefore expect the Sindh government which, according to article 5 (1) of the 2009 law, exercises general superintendence on the prosecution service and is responsible for achieving the objectives of the 2009 law, will take effective measures so that the cases involving crimes linked to narcotic substances are treated effectively and in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of investidators and prospectors.
“The Attorney General Sindh should examine this case and take the appropriate measures so that omissions observed in this case are not repeated. The Attorney General is also invited to consider directives in the exercise of his functions under article 9-A (1) of the 2009 law for prosecutors and officers responsible for investigations relating to effective and effective procusions.
The high court should also consider setting up a regular training policy for justice agents relating to the conduct of criminal trials. The ordinance also indicated that this case had emanated from the Sindh province, when the Sindh provincial assembly promulgated and promulgated the 2009 law on the Sindh Criminal Service (Functions and Powers of the Constitution).
“The Sindh criminal proceedings were established under this legislation. The law of 2009 defines the powers, functions and responsibilities of the prosecution service in carrying out prosecution on behalf of the government.
“The administration of this service is accompanied by the government. Article 9 (1) explicitly provides that prosecutors will be responsible for carrying out prosecution on behalf of the government. The Attorney General is empowered in article 9-A (1) to issue general directives for prosecutors or officers responsible for the survey for effective and effective procedures.
