Section 9 (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969), Articles 6, 7 and 8 define the identification and trafficking of intoxicating substances, reduction of statements of the prosecution witnesses, if taken as a whole, the details of the material According to the samples were. Within 24 hours of the occupation of the raiding authorities, chemical inspection was sent. No possibility of tampering with specimens, no search and recovery by the raiding party at the site of the suspect and vehicle seized and recovered. For the chemical sample obtained and the chemical inspection sent, each of the 207 packets of marijuana and 9 packets of opium was not taken individually. The prosecution's witness improved his first statement and testified That samples were obtained from each packet of the banned member. Improvement by the witness not only contradicts the contents of the FIR, nor does the retrieval memo of the prohibition, the action of his statement during the investigation, and the statement of the testimony of the other prosecution be standard evidence of the special sentencing provisions of the death penalty. And the prosecution could not seek any internal guidance. And also only a fraction of it, ignoring the maintenance procedures and other details of the procedures unless the relevant sanctions for prohibited sanctions are sampled and by a positive report from the Franz Science Laboratory. Unconfirmed, this packet will not prove the possession required under the Narcotic Substances Control Act 1997, the prosecution did not explicitly prove that they had met the threshold of section 9 For 207 exports of hashish and opium packets
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
