Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 1368 2025 SLD 1368 = 2025 SCP 177 = 2025 SCMR 1351
Supreme Court of Pakistan
JailPetition No. 27/2019 (Against the judgement dated 06.12.2018 passed by Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench in Crl. appeal No. D-90/2012 & Crl. appeal No. D-87/2012 )
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR MR. JUSTICE SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR MR. JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM
Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Assisted by: Ms. Tayyaba Munir, Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2025.

Ghazi Khan Pathan & Marzak Khan ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

The State ...Respondent

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 6, 7, 9(c)

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 4(b)

Law: Arms Ordinance, 1965

Section: 13-A(c)

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 6, 7

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 397,382-B

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 122

Summary

This judgment addresses a jail petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, challenging the Sindh High Court’s affirmation of convictions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA). The case arose from a 2011 vehicle search yielding narcotics and weapons. The trial and appellate courts found both accused guilty, but the Supreme Court distinguished between the driver (Ghazi Khan) and passenger (Marzak Khan). The Court upheld the driver’s conviction based on constructive possession and intent to flee, but acquitted the passenger due to lack of evidence of knowledge or control over the contraband.

(a)   Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Official witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated on the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity---Official witnesses were competent witnesses unless mala fide, enmity, or ulterior motive is convincingly established on the record, which, in the present case, was conspicuously absent---In fact, it had emerged on record that all the prosecution witnesses belonged to the Excise Department, whereas the accused persons were from another province and there existed no past animosity between them that may give rise to suspicion of false implication---Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register