Sections 9 (c) and 48 Proof of intoxication Definition of evidence The suspect (appellant) was accused of carrying a bucket of drugs on his bicycle, and upon seeing the police station, he was on his bicycle. He managed to escape the trial court. The accused were convicted under Section 9 (c) of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act, 1997. The convictions were that there were material contradictions between the evidence of the complainant and the recovery witness, who were both police officers. The prosecutor's story about the escape of the suspects in the presence of eleven police officers did not appeal the argument, and that the complainant was also the investigating officer of the case, which in itself was sufficient to make a partial inquiry into the investigation. There was no litigation. It is stated that the suspect previously knew the witnesses (police officers), therefore, the identity of the suspect was suspected because he was not arrested on the spot, the accused allegedly denied the facts of the incident, Had thrown his bicycle and managed to escape, believing he needed credible and controversial evidence to prove the suspect's identity, because beyond any doubt the person who has been charged for the crime The witnesses (police officers) did not disclose information about them to the perpetrator of the criminal prosecution The suspect sample to the safe custody of the parcel to the right person failed to establish details of the suspect was allegedly intoxicated thing as going to export prohibited substances seriously suspect that the police have sealed sample parcel
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
