Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1044 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Ghulam Hussain Gullo vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1044 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Ghulam Hussain Gullo VS State S. 9(1)3(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that charas was recovered from his possession---As per contents of FIR, accused was apprehended from B & R Chowk and 1085 grams of hashish [charas] was recovered as a result of body search---However in murasila, 1185 grams `was mentioned, whereas as per statement of Investigating Officer of the case 185 grams charas was recovered from the accused, which created serious doubt in the prosecution case---According to prosecution case, the accused was apprehended on prior spy information by the police party during patrolling from hub of the city i.e. B & R Chowk, being a thickly populated area, when he was selling hashish, but the complainant did not associate any person to act as masheer and witness to the recovery proceedings---Investigating Officer did not try to associate private persons to witness the alleged recovery at the time of receiving spy information---Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C, were not attracted to the cases of personal search of accused, however, in case of prior information, failure to secure independent witnesses, particularly, in case of a recovery, could not be brushed aside lightly by the Court---S.25 of the Act 1997 excluded the applicability of S.103 Cr.P.C, which required two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to be associated when search was made, however, it was not understandable why the complainant or any other member of the raiding party did not photograph or make a video recording during the whole episode of alleged recovery within the purview of S.164 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984---Another material aspect of the case, which had been overlooked by the Trial Court was the selling of charas by the accused---Accused was allegedly selling charas but no purchaser was present at the alleged time of sale of charas because no statement of the purchaser seemed to have been recorded and sale money had also not been recovered from the accused at the time of arrest by the Investigation Officer, as such the allegation seemed to be fallacious---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1044 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Ghulam Hussain Gullo vs State S — 2024 MLD 1044 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD