Police arrested the accused during a patrol duty and allegedly found 1,200 grams of marijuana in his possession, according to the trial court. Section 9 of the Drug Control Act 1997 (C) The accused was convicted and sentenced. There were conflicts between the two prosecutors' witnesses (police officers) in relation to the number of pieces of the charge, as well as the prosecution's witnesses, a prosecutor's witness said, writing the FIR to the station house itself. The officer (section HO) wrote. While the other prosecution witness testified that the FIR was written by Writer Head Constable (WHC) and that statements were made under section 161, the CRPC also said that the constable had filed a prosecution witness's statement. During the recording of the evidence, three pieces of marijuana were made in court, while at the time of recording of the evidence of the prosecution's second witness, two pieces of marijuana were presented which the investigating officer admitted was also told that the chemical returned by the Examiner. The property sent was not presented to the court; the sealed samples were sent for examination after a delay of 5 months and 10 days and it is not known. Could have seen how the recovered property dealt with this delay. A sample of the property was sent to the Chemical Examiner and presented to the court, raising suspicion about the prosecution's version in connection with the recovery of marijuana, as well as the number of fragments suspecting his case against the prosecution. Could not prove beyond the shadow of the appeal, the appeal was allowed, the trial court's decision was set aside and the accused acquitted
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
