Section 9 (c) and 26 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), section 571 A strict entry, search, seizure, or arrest of detainees took advantage of suspicion by the court, accusing the authorities of the recovery of 16 kilograms of hashish. Release notices on filing of a serious FIR. In every case the accuracy of cellular phones and motorcycles was the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt and if the same situation could raise suspicion in the mind, then the benefit should be extended to the accused persons and They will be exonerated. Under the principle of benefit of the doubt, to provide for Section 26 of the Drug Substances Control Act 1997, it was necessary to see if the arrest and possession was serious or necessary, which aspect was not proved by the criminal material. Yes, the accused were also arrested. Large quantities of 16 kg of marijuana, besides motorcycles, mobile phones, etc., which could not be disposed of and failed, were not sought by the Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Material Control Act 1997, because the officers were charged by the officers. There was no material to prevent the arrest and seizure of the substance and it was not directed by any unnecessary or unnecessary High Court to vacate the notice issued by the authorities under Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances. ? Application was allowed under the circumstances of the Act, 1997
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
