Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 2259 2025 SLD 2259 = 2025 YLR 777
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal. No. 454 of 2023, decided on 16th October, 2024.
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Haji Attaullah Langove for Appellant. Muhammad Younas Mengal, Additional Prosecutor General (APG) for the State.

BASHIR AHMED---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(c)

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence--Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Six packets of crystal, four packets of opium, twenty two packets of sheesha and four packet of heroine were recovered from the vehicle driven by the appellant---Complainant reiterated what he had reported in his murasila, but in his statement before the Court he did not state that after the recovery to whom he had handed over six (6) packets of crystal, four (4) packets of powder (heroin), four (4) packets of opium and twenty two (22) packets of sheesha---Recovery witness deposed that on 05.03.2023, he apprehended the appellant, while driving a pickup truck and recovered the said narcotics concealed beneath the rear seat of the said pickup, which were secured through recovery memo---Recovery witness produced parcels of samples and narcotics, including a pickup truck---During crossexamination, said witness admitted that neither six (6) packets of crystal, four (4) packets of opium, twenty two (22) packets of sheesha and four (4) packets of powder (heroin) were sealed separately nor did he mention the case number or name of the accused on the recovered packets---Said witness admitted that they did not make any entry in the Roznamcha regarding departure---Recovery witness in his examination-in-chief admitted that on the day of incident no other vehicle was checked, contradicting the complainant, who in his statement stated that during patrol duty, they made a blockade on main road and also checked cars---Moreso, neither in murasila nor in FIR there was any mention of blockade---In view of the contradictions highlighted, the prosecution version was found immensely cloudy---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of narcotic substances and its transmission to the laboratory not proved---Six packets of crystal, four packets of opium, twenty two packets of sheesha and four packet of heroin were recovered from the vehicle driven by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register