Article 9 (c) and 25 convicts convicted of intoxicating drug addicts, the accused's lawyer's lawyer did not object to the defendant's sentence, but he prayed for his sentence to be reduced. It was alleged that he was convicted on the basis of evidence of his recovery. The Chemical Examiner's report on its behalf also supported the prosecution's case, to the extent of the conviction, no negligence was proved in the unknown verdict, nor did any justification or justification of any kind interfere with the offense. While the circumstances of the prosecution did not mention that 45 kilograms of hashish was recovered from the accused, the trial court had assumed that 45 kilograms of hashish was recovered from the accused - basic. As his statement was filed under 5 2 342, the CCP accused also obtained defensive evidence. The accused's statement should not have been taken as fact and the rest of the accused's statements would either be excluded Lee or fully accepted in the trial court was not lawful, knowing that the accused was 45 Kilograms of marijuana was recovered while a relatively small quantity of 5 kg was recovered from the accused, the punishment was reduced from death sentence. Section 382B, CRPC, was also sentenced to seven years in prison and fined Burden, as ordered by the trial court, to remain.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
