Section 9 (c) Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Sections 4 (c), 221, 227, 233 and 265d recovered allegedly various amounts of possession of the jurisdiction in charge of framing, modification and modification of drugs. Exported. The accused and their co-accused in two episodes. At the same time and place; for which various restoration memories were prepared by the investigating officer in the Spot Law, in such circumstances, it was necessary that each accused be charged with possessing the allegedly recovered. They should have been charged separately. Recovery of marijuana weighing 1020 grams from their accomplices is likely to cause prejudice against the accused, recorded through a separate memo, changing the trial court's charge based on the material available on the record. The court's ruling on rejecting the defendants' plea for modification of the case was a violation of law and fact, which is likely to cause bias in the defendant's case based on a misdiagnosis of the abusive material available on record. , Not sustainable in the eyes of the law. And it was appropriate to set them aside, as well as an impeachment order was given to the trial court to amend the charges on a case-by-case basis. By law, excavating material available on record. r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
