PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

HAIDER vs State S — 2026 MLD 745 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2026 MLD 745 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
MLD
Parties
HAIDER vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 9; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

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

Judgment text as reported

HAIDER VS State 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.

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English