Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2009 YLR 1632

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

Citation2009 YLR 1632
CourtBalochistan High Court
Case No.Criminal Jail Appeal No,102 of 2004
Date2009-01-09
Judge(s)Mehta Kelash Nath Kohli, Ahmed Khan Lashari
ResultAppeal dismissed

1. ' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.---This appeal is directed against judgment dated 28th September, 2004, passed by learned Special Judge (C.N.S.), Lasbella at Hub, in C.N.S. Case No,20 of 2004, whereby; appellant Muhammad Hussain son of Alam Gul, caste Achakzai, resident of Tehsil Gulistan, District Qilla Abdullah has been convicted under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty five years with fine of Rs,1,00,000, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was granted in favour of appellant accused.

3. ' Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28th April, 2004, at 7-30 a.m. F.I.R. No,3 of 2004, under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was registered by Levies Station Lakhra, District Lasbella on the report of one Muhammad Usman, Naib Risaldar, Levies Force, Lakhra, wherein; it was stated that complainant along with other Levies officials were patrolling the area of Musyani, at 7-00 a.m. They reached at Lakhra bus stop. It was further alleged that on eastern side of the road, one suspicious person namely Muhammad Hussain son of Alam Gul, resident of Gulistan was standing along with ten sacks, on enquiry he informed the complainant that the sacks contain chaff of poppy plant, which he had brought from Khuzdar and was taking the same to Karachi, and; in order to conceal the said sacks from Coast Guards, he had brought the same through link road. Consequently, accused appellant was arrested and above said F.I.R. Was registered. After completion of investigation, challan of the case was filed in the Court. Learned Special Judge (CNS)

4. Lasbella at Hub took cognizance in the matter; charge was framed, which was denied by the appellant accused.

5. ' In order to prove its case, prosecution produced following evidence:-- ' P.W.1 Muhammad Usman, Naib Risaldar Levies, Lakhra (complainant) appeared and reiterated the version of F.I.R. (Exh.P/1-A). He had produced ten sacks Article-P/1 and then bags Article-P/2 to be the same. In cross-examination, he stated that in the night at 8-00 p.m. They had proceeded on patrolling duty. He has stated that the place of recovery was situated at a distance of one Kilometer from Levies

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch