Muhammad Faisal vs State S — 2025 YLR 878 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.

Muhammad Faisal VS State S.9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022), S. 9(1)(6)(b)---Possession and transportation of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements and contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that 1800-grams charas, 200-grams crystal/ice and 300-grams intoxication tablets were recovered from the possession of accused---Complainant in his statement recorded before the Court contended that he along with other Police Officials were on patrol duty that in the meanwhile, the spy/informer came and informed that the appellant possessing a huge quantity of contraband material was present at the graveyard, whereas, the recovery witness in cross-examination deposed that the spy/informer told about presence of appellant through mobile phone, whereafter, they proceeded to the place of occurrence---Complainant further deposed that when the appellant was apprehended, he conducted his personal search, while, recovery witness negating the statement of complainant stated that when the appellant was apprehended, a Constable made his search---During his statement, the complainant stated that when the contraband material recovered from the possession of the appellant was weighed, it appeared as baked charas 900 grams each (slate shape), total 1800 grams, crystal/ice 200 grams and intoxicant tables 300 grams; that out of the baked charas 10/10 grams were separated for chemical analysis and sealed in parcel Nos.1 and 2; that the remaining baked charas i.e. 890/890 grams were sealed in parcel No.3, whereas, remaining 190 grams were sealed in parcel No.3A, while from the recovered intoxicant tablets 10 grams were separated and sealed in parcel No.4, whereas, remaining 290 grams were sealed in parcel No.4-A, and black colour parcel No.5 was sealed in white colour sacks---Such portion of statement of the complainant was contradictory to the statement of recovery witness, as he in his statement nowhere stated about preparation of parcel No.4, which meant that either parcel No.4 was never prepared, or if it was prepared the same was not presented before the Court---Furthermore, such portion of statement of complainant was also silent with regard to separation of representative samples for chemical analysis from the crystal/ice, allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant---Moreover, the recovery witness during cross-examination admitted the fact that when the complainant was preparing the Marasilla, at that time he wrote the case number over the parcels---It was strange to note that even prior to registration of FIR, the complainant was well aware about the case number, which he mentioned over the parcels, when he was preparing Murasilla---Moreover, major contradictions, which were not ignorable, could be seen in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses with regard to recovery of contraband material---Presence of contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses made the case doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Faisal vs State S — 2025 YLR 878 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR