Sections 9 (C), 21, 22 and 23 were apprehended by the witnesses, both accused of driving the vehicle from which the narcotics were recovered, the accused claimed that an officer below the post of sub-inspector was section 21. , 22 may not affect recovery. In the Control of the Narcotic Materials Act 1997, 23, the Deputy Magistrate did not commit any error or misconduct in failing this proceeding in the absence of the Judicial Magistrate's permission unless during any investigation. This kind of irregularity will not proceed until then. Such irregularities had prejudicial effect on any of the parties 'cases, especially when the accused failed to establish the witnesses' instability of the Inquiry Officer's evidence without evidence contradicting their statements. Although not sealed and samples not taken. Content was still set up on the spot and the suspect was not denied his arrest for the car carrying the intoxicant and in the presence of the suspect, according to which Burden alleged that he was in the vehicle. And it had nothing to do with the material recovered from this vehicle. The trial defendant had attached the accused to the commission of the crime on record of material related to the same area, the trial court correctly appreciating the evidence. No interference was guaranteed by the High Court under circumstances r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
