IN an important judgment, Peshawar High Court has declared that methamphetamine, commonly known as ice, or crystal meth and amphetamine are two different psychotropic drugs and the offences related to the two should be dealt with under separate provisions of the narcotics law.

While the local police have so far not been making any distinction between the two psychotropic drugs and both are mentioned as ice or crystal, following the court’s judgment they have to treat both differently.

Hearing a bail petition of an accused, a single-member bench of the high court comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar has ruled that section 10 and 11 of the KP Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 2019, only deals with offences related to methamphetamine (ice) and offences related to other psychotropic substances including amphetamine could not be dealt under those provisions.

Senior advocate Nasrun Minallah, who is an expert on narcotics laws, told Dawn that although amphetamine and methamphetamine were almost identical and both were deadly, yet due to flaw in the law both had to be treated differently.

He said that one of the major purposes of enacting KPCNSA was to provide harsher punishment for offences related to ice and for that purpose the provisions dealing with methamphetamine were different than that of other psychotropic substances. However, he said, the lawmakers erred in placing amphetamine along with other drugs and not with that of methamphetamine commonly known as crystal or ice.

Although, the bench had rejected bail plea of the petitioner on September 6, it made distinction between the two psychotropic substances.

The petitioner, Irfan, was arrested on June 7, 2021, by Gulbahar police station on charges of possessing 1,050 grams of ice. He was charged under section 11-C of KPCNSA, which exclusively deals with methamphetamine. However, the chemical examination of the drug showed that it was amphetamine and not methamphetamine.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that police wrongly charged his client for possession of ice, whereas the chemical examination report provided that the alleged ceased drug was amphetamine and not methamphetamine, therefore, the alleged offence fell under section 9-C of KPCNSA and not under section 11-C, which carried much higher prison sentence.

He stated that the quantity of 1,050 grams was on borderline of one kilogram and thus it did not fall in the prohibitory clause under section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure and was entitled to the concession of bail.

An additional advocate general, Mohammad Nisar Khan, contended that amphetamine was from the same family of methamphetamine. He stated that being locally manufactured, amphetamine was a dangerous drug.

The chemical examiner supported the contention of the AAG, but admitted that both the drugs had separate chemical formulas.

The bench observed that prior to enactment of KPCNSA, the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, was in the field, but with the promulgation of the new law the federal law was repealed to the extent of cultivation, possession, selling, purchasing, delivery and transportation etc within the province.

The bench observed that the aim and objective of the new law was to provide for strict punishments for the newly introduced drugs, which were duly mentioned in the schedule attached to the law.

The court further observed that the main issue before it was whether the recovery of amphetamine could be punished under section 9 or section 11 of the 2019 Act.

It was observed that section 2(a) of the law defined a psychotropic substance as the substance specified in the schedule appended to the Act and such substance as government may, by notification in the official gazette, declared to be a psychotropic substance.

The bench observed that section 9 provided punishment for psychotropic substances and at the same time section 11 provided different punishments in view of the quantity of methamphetamine.

The court ruled that to clarify the situation an amendment was made in the Act in 2020 through which in section 9 it was mentioned that it applied to psychotropic substances except methamphetamine. Similarly, a proviso was added which provided that offences relating or involving methamphetamine should be dealt in accordance with section 11 of the Act.

The bench observed that psychotropic substance as mentioned in the schedule also included amphetamine at S.No 1, while methamphetamine was mentioned at S.No 40 of the schedule.

The bench ruled that in view of the said amendment, methamphetamine was completely distinguished from other psychotropic substances for the purpose of punishment and only section 10 and 11 would deal with offences related to methamphetamine.

Rejecting the petition, the bench observed the chemical examiner had demonstrated before the court that amphetamine was also a controlled drug and being locally manufactured it was dangerous to the human health and as per recent studies, the group who were most at risk of abusing amphetamine were students of colleges and universities and young boys.

“The government has to make an amendment in the law so that both methamphetamine and amphetamine shall be treated under same provisions of KPCNSA,” said Mr Nasrun Minallah.

Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2021