FORCE COMMANDER, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE ANF, RAWALPINDI versus JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (CNS)
Section 8 Control8 Control of the Narcotic Sub-Maturity Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (c), 14 and 15 of the filing of a drug, relief, liberty or association authorization to approve the accused The car and the accomplices were allegedly involved in giving Ephedrine's quota against the rules, a special prosecutor's (anti-narcotics force) co-accused's request to be approved so that his statement could be recorded. The trial court ruled that the full invoice had not been submitted. That the trial had not yet begun. That the waiver request was not transmitted by the prosecution in charge of admitting the participant as an approver, and that the proposed statement of the participant was not included with the request and the consent of the applicant The justification statement must be recorded during an inquiry or inquiry or trial, therefore, under Cr PCC, no condition precedent to the statement approved under the CRPC was attached, and at any time before the judgment, the special prosecutor (Anti-Narcotics Force) can be listed. In the prosecution's charge and when a competent authority had sought an apology, the special prosecutor was fully capable of transferring the request to the co-accused as a record of approval because the participant's statement was and is available on record. The appeal filed by the Special Prosecutor attached to the trial court's restraining order, therefore, based on reasonable reasoning, the request was not accepted, the impugned order was set aside and the trial court, according to the request of the special prosecutor. Directions to move the matter forward
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
