NAZEER AHMED vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 1681 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NAZEER AHMED VS State S. 11-F(6)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38, 39 & 40---Member of proscribed organization---Appreciation of evidence---Possession of a flag of a proscribed organization "Daesh" along with narcotic substances---Accused while riding bike on road was intercepted by the police whereupon the alleged recovery was made---Accused assailed his conviction and sentence contending that nothing was available on record against him except an allegedly recovered flag, black in colour---Validity---Case of the prosecution rested upon the ocular account furnished by its six witnesses---Statement of the In-charge Malkhana as a prosecution witness was only relevant with regard to safe custody of narcotics in Malkhana but had no significance regarding the indictment in the present case---Disclosure was allegedly made by the accused in presence of the prosecution witnesses, whereof memo of disclosure was prepared, which memo was duly exhibited---Said exhibited memo was the bedrock of the case as per prosecution---Indisputably, the flag was not recovered in consequence of said disclosure , therefore, the disclosure amounted to a confession before the police officer , which was inadmissible under Arts. 38 & 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, squaring out the disclosure (exhibited memo) from the purview of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Another exhibited document (S.R.O No.690(i) dated 15-07-2015) merely envisaged "Daesh" as proscribed organization, which was no help to indict the accused---Merely possessing a flag, having resemblance to the flag of "Daesh" or some other proscribed organization, itself alone would not constitute an offence under S. 11-F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Prosecution had failed to produce independent, tangible and strong corroborative evidence to establish indictment---Reasoning of the Trial Court might be sufficient to the extent of indictment for recovery of narcotic substance, but not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of crime as enunciated under S. 11-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and acquitted him from the charge---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

NAZEER AHMED vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 1681 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ