Sections 8, 9 and 13 (e) of the Explosives Act (1908 of VII), Section 3/4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a) of the Arms and Explosives and Terrorism. The testimony was claimed to be the testimony of the accused. Nor was the recovered weapon sealed on the spot. Nor was he sent to the Ballistic Expert for his opinion, because it was in working condition or not; in any other case he did not need weapons to retrieve, so that he could be sealed on the spot, No questions were suggested for. The defense lawyer's testimony that the weapon presented to the court was not in working condition was denied in the present case. The recovery of the pistol was denied by the lawyer, claiming that the pistol was not sealed on the spot. And it is not working. There was no power in the situation for which the required license could not be kept, even if it was not working, for not sending a pistol to the expert for comment, was a mistake by the investigating officer. And in the prosecution's case was not known, in the absence of any unlawful interference or weakness of the High Court in the unenviable decision, the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed and the unanticipated verdict was upheld.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
