Muhammad Hashim S/O Muhammad Alam vs The State
Balochistan High Court · 2026 · Before Hon'ble Justice Shaukat Ali Rakhshani
Appellant has brought in the captioned appeal to set at naught the judgment dated 16.05.2025 ("impugned judgment") drawn by Sessions Judge, Kuchlak-Special Judge CNS ("Trial Court"), emanating from FIR No.119 of 2024 (Ex.P/5-A) registered with Police Station Kuchlak, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 9 (1)3 (b) and under section 9 (1)6(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amended Act 2022) Act of 1997 in the following terms; ”i. He is convicted under section 9 (1)3 (b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (as amended by Act No. XX of 2022) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and in case of default in payment of fine, he shall suffer S.I. for further 02 (two) months. ii. He is also convicted under section 9 (1)6(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (as amended by Act No. XX of 2022) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and in case of default in payment of fine, he shall suffer S.I. for further 02 (two) months. c. The benefit of section 382-B CrPC is extended in favour of the convict from the date of his arrest 10.10.2024. All the sentences shall run concurrently.”
2. Succinctly, facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that complainant Muhammad Ali S.I (PW-1) got lodged the Crl Appeal No. 136 of 2025 (2) Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. FIR ibid, averring therein that on 10.10.2024 during patrolling duty on a tip off, he apprehended the appellant at about 03:00 pm from Killi Khano graveyard, whereupon his personal search, recovered 500 grams of baked ‘charas‘ from his right pocket and 100 grams of ‘heroin’ from left pocket, wherefrom five (05) grams of baked ‘charas’ and two (02) grams of ‘heroin’ were extracted for chemical analysis and parcel Nos.1 & 2 were prepared, whereas remaining 495 grams of ‘charas’ and 98 grams of ‘heroin’ were sealed in parcel Nos.1-A & 2-A.
3. After usual investigation, the appellant was put on trial, whereafter denial, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge produced five (5) witnesses. The appellant was examined under section 342 of CrPC, who denied the allegations and professed innocence, however, he neither opted to record his statement on oath nor produced any defence, thus the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment impugned herein in the terms mentioned in para supra.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the prosecution has neither proved the recovery of the narcotics nor its safe custody and transmission, but the Trial Court has recorded the conviction for the reasons contrary to the evidence. Argued further that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which has made the recovery of narcotics highly doubtful, but the Trial Court has failed to appreciate such aspect of the case, henceforth, prayed for acquittal of the appellant. On the other hand, learned APG resisted and vehemently opposed the contentions so put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…