Section 9 (c) Police Order (22 of 2002), Article 18 (4) of the definition of evidence for drug and smuggling completely destroys their evidence on the occasion within the bus stand, but not The statement of the general manager of the bus stand was not recorded, nor was it included in the operation to indicate the presence of a private person. The defendant at the said location, or to prove that in fact the incident was clearly contradicted in the submission of witnesses on the record inside the bus stand, was not sufficient to consider the testimony of these witnesses as fatal to scatter. ? The same incredible testimony says that the witnesses were pushed aside and there was an understandable delay in sending the parcel. No explanation has been recorded for the laboratory, which manipulated the forensic science laboratory report and could not be relied upon in any way that could have led to the arrest of the parcels during that period. , The complainant of the case, who belongs to the Operation Wing of the Police, while Article 18 (4) of the Police Order, 2002, has considered that all listed and identifiable cases of conviction over three years are investigated by the police. From any officer of the Sub-Inspector Investigation Wing of Police's entire material inquiry was in violation of the essential provisions of the law, and had no legal effect. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt, improper verdict, which was not sustainable in the eyes. Of the accused by the trial court
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
