Section 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 103 Drug Trafficking Private Advisor's Non-Organization, Appraisal of Impact Evidence No Complaint was found in the complainant's evidence The prosecution's witness completed the trial , And no wrongdoing was made in connection with the arrest of the accused. At the indictment of the accused, the recovery of the narcotics was done; the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses could not be dispersed in the long scrutiny. In which there is no deficiency or impairment. Their evidence did not indicate the deployment of witnesses and no contradiction, although there was a large amount of drug involved in the case, but the testimony of the complainant and the prosecutor did not differ or contradict each other regarding the number of packets. Were. Counseling for the accused and the manner in which they were recovered could not prove to be a hostility to the prosecution's witnesses for allegedly falsely prosecuting the accused for illicit reasons. , Which was confirmed by the prosecution's testimony with the private lawyer, that the engagement of the private counsel was not necessary, because under Section 103, the CRPC was excluded from the Drug Substance Control Act. , The arrest of Section 25 of 1997 and the recovery counselors prepared on the spot in the presence of advisers regularly And there was huge drug involvement in the case, and in view of the strong evidence against the accused. People, they were rightly punished and sentenced. And reduction of punishment
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
