Proof of intoxication of section 9 (c) into minor error of evidence / contradiction In the trial court, the accused found in possession of 6kg of hashish were convicted under Section 9 (c) of the Criminal Drugs Act, 1997 Under sentencing and conviction, the prosecution held that the prosecution's evidence was full of contradictions and contradictions. After a delay of five days, the samples were sent to the chemical expert, and only 30 grams of the recovered substance was sent for chemical analysis; therefore, the maximum punishment could be recorded about 30 grams of marijuana. Contradictions and contradictions. The statements of the prosecutor's witnesses (police officers) were trivial and could be ignored because all witnesses had a history, time, place of arrest, recovery of marijuana from the accused and a point of view of sending a chemical inspector of the prosecution's witnesses. Compatible with each other. (Police Officers) cannot be questioned without serious allegations against the accused in connection with their misconduct. The accused, including Chars, was arrested on the spot and the substance recovered from the Chemical Examiner's report was found late. Which was delayed in sending articles to a chemical specialist for analysis. Human beings were not molested or treated in the absence of objections related to it. In the present case, the agitators never claimed during the trial or before that the samples were either changed or They were tampered with so it was not required by law to send the recovered drug to the Chemical Examiner, and only a small article to prove it.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
