Section 9 (c) Determination of drug possession and trafficking evidence: The prosecution's testimony was examined at length, but nothing came up in favor of the accused or the conviction to prosecute the case. That the marijuana was not recovered from the vehicle was driven by the accused at the relevant time, the prosecution had proven its case in connection with the recovery of the marijuana from the vehicle, which was under the control and control of the prosecution witnesses. In his account, it was stated that the culprit, the defendant in the front was the shape of the bars, 10 of which Were sent for analysis in the form of 10 grams of marijuana, a chemical expert, this means that initially was sent for expert analysis of 100 grams of cannabis was not available. On the record, it appears that the samples were removed from the packet or each stick by the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of proving that there was a burglary in the entire wand / packet. Separately sent to a chemical specialist, nothing was on record, which could indicate that the marijuana was lying in the period, whether in the customs intelligence office or elsewhere, but the prosecution's responsibility It was beyond doubt that he could record the evidence to prove his case against the accused effectively. Keep in mind, but the evidence was brought to the record, the China Trial Court relied on the chemical expert's report. It was not admissible evidence and was illegally tendered, the prosecutor said against the accused, only 100 grams
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
