Section 9 (c) definitions of drug arrest and smuggling evidence, sent to the chemical examiner the very next day after exposure, and the Chemical Examiner's report are positive, both of the prosecution's witnesses, long distance investigations. But according to his testimony, the date of the incident, the quantity of marijuana and the location of the incident could not be broken, contradictions, allegedly indicated by the accused's lawyer, were trivial and of legal proceedings. There would be no fatalities The defendant was arrested in a prosecution case while he was holding plastic. There was no reason or any scope for the prohibited marijuana bag that was intended to be transported to the same location, because the suspect was not aware of the substance contained in his bag. With the prohibited item was gone, the prosecution also departed. And the complainant's party was also charged with presenting the entries. It was not possible to prosecute the accused in such large quantities as Annette and the adviser made false accusations against them. There was no illegal action to convict, there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge against which there was no ground to interfere with the trial court's designated decision under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997 No, appeal against them in the event that the decision is dismissed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
