Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2372 2026 SLD 2372 = 2026 MLD 745
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2025, decided on 07th January, 2026.
Presented By: Gul Hassan Tareen, J
Chaudhary Muhammad Usman v. State 2023 SCMR 1676 and Hazrat Usman v. State 2025 PCr.LJ 130 rel.       Rehmatullah Khan for Appellant.

HAIDER and another---Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE through Special Public Prosecutor ANF, Quetta ---Respondent

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Section: 9(c)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 94, 540

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 149

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) S.9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 94 & 540---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 149---Possession of narcotic substances---Exclusion of evidence---Summoning of CDR of cell phone of carrier of murasila---Scope---Application for the summoning of CDR of cell phone of carrier of murasila was dismissed---Applicants alleged that the carrier of murasila was not present at the spot, and that s why, to contradict the witness, CDR of cell phone of said witness be summoned, which would prove that he was not present at the time and place recovery of the narcotic substance---Trial Court dismissed the application---Validity---Article 149 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, limiting the right to call evidence to contradict a witness on collateral issues excluded all evidence of fact which were incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal matter in dispute, therefore, Art. 149 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted---However, a witness answering falsely could be proceeded against for perjury---Article 149 of Qanun-e-Shahadat prescribed two exceptions of that rule of exclusion of evidence; firstly, previous conviction when denied could be proved and secondly, and fact tending to impeach his impartiality, when denied, could be proved---Otherwise, the Court would have to investigate on irrelevant facts which had no bearing upon the matter in issue---Evidence intended to be brought on record to shake the credibility of witness/carrier of murasila by injuring his character was not admissible and did not fall within the two exceptions---Thus, appellant s application was not competent which was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in limine.       Date of hearing: 5th January, 2026.                                                                                            …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register