KARACHI, Aug 3: The special courts for the control of narcotic substances were constituted several years ago for dispensation of speedy justice to the masses, but the objective seems to remain unachieved as most cases are being decided after a protracted delay, Dawn has reliably learnt.

Before the promulgation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, all cases of narcotics were tried by district and sessions judges. However, the cases were mostly decided after extraordinary delays because district courts had to try a number of civil and criminal cases, too. For quick disposal of narcotic cases, special courts were established by promulgating the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Powers were conferred on district and sessions judges to try narcotic cases where special courts for the control of narcotic substance were not established under the act.

Two special courts for the control of narcotic substances, better known as CNS court- I and II, were established in Karachi in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Besides, there are four CNS courts functioning across the country, one each in Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar and Quetta.

However, sources said that most cases of narcotics were being decided after an unprecedented delay, adding that the conviction rate also remained low. They said only cases registered against foreigners were being disposed of rapidly because the accused normally did not hire counsel. The foreigners mostly pleaded guilty on the very first hearing, they said, adding that the cases of about 100 foreigners, including a good number of women, were being trialed in the city’s special courts.

Umer Khan is one such victim of delayed justice. He was acquitted by the special narcotic substances control court II on Aug 2, 2008 in a case registered against him in 1999 as the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence.

The recent acquittal of a former excise and taxation officer in six cases pending against him since 1999 also speaks of the pace of dispensation of justice. The prosecution stated that a former excise and taxation officer, Khalid Faridi, was arrested by the anti-narcotics force in 1999 on the charges of possessing and selling drugs. Six cases (FIR Nos 16, 17, 20, 22, 77, and 56/1999) were registered against him under Section 6/9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act.

The officer remained behind bars for nine years and awaited judgment. The court finally acquitted him as the prosecution failed to prove his involvement in any of the six cases pending against him.

Though the overall conviction rate in narcotic cases remained low, those in which the accused were found guilty, too, were decided after prolonged delays, sources said, citing the case of two drug peddlers recently imprisoned for 14 years by the special control of narcotic substance court I in the case registered in 1999.

The prosecution said that Panda Khan and Saifullah were arrested in the Sharah-i-Noorjehan police limits and 70 kilograms of charas (cannabis resin) was seized from their possession in 1999. A case (FIR 135/99) was registered against the accused under Section 6/9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

According to the statistics compiled by the law, justice and human rights division of the federal government, the special control of narcotic substance court I in Karachi had disposed of 283 out of 1,364 cases from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 while the other special court disposed of 168 out of 726 cases during the year.

Mahmoodul Hasan, a senior lawyer, termed the institution of special courts unnecessary and said the earlier district and sessions judges had effectively trialed the narcotics cases. “The formation of special courts was only meant to accommodate pro-government people,” he said.

Some legal experts held investigating agencies responsible for the low conviction rate and the delay in disposal of narcotics cases. They told Dawn that the prosecution and ANF showed recovery of narcotic substances from the accused in almost every case but remained unable to sustain such cases due to lack of professional skills, which also caused considerable delays in the disposal of the cases.