Section 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), section 103 was allegedly arrested on suspicion of arrest of narcotics evidence and recovered 11kg of hashish from the back seat of the vehicle. In which the accused was under trial and the accused were convicted under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Material Act, 1997 and charged with the rear seat of the vehicle in accordance with the FIR. Was recovered but the recovery was allegedly from the dashboard. The vehicle; the complainant (policeman) himself investigated the matter. That the samples were sent to the chemical inspector after a delay, and that no private persons were involved in witnessing the recovery process, the error in the composition of the charge was not of the nature that would disperse the entire proceeding in evidence. There was no material contradiction about the increase. Since the material aspects of the case since there was no objection by the accused that the ban was un-sealed or tampered with or manipulated, there was a delay in sending it for investigation. The chemical examiner's report was not positive, nor did the controversy arise in defense. The authenticity of the chemical analyst report was not challenged, although no private person recovery process was observed. Compliance with the provisions of section 103, CRPC under the control of the Narcotic Substances Act, in the drug case, C was done The 1997 prosecution had produced a solid and trustworthy ocular and a sewer, along with evidence against the defendant,
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
