Section 9 (c) denied the presence of suspects in the possession and disposal of drug paraphernalia and the recovery of heavy quantities of drug paraphernalia at the site of narcotics evidence, saying that substance was found near the bus stop near the road. And the suspects were waiting for the same transport, in such circumstances cannot be considered as joint rehabilitation. The joint venture between the joint venture and the joint venture SPY pointed to the female accused. And in this case there was no illegal intention or motive for the police to make false allegations in any way; the lawyer of the accused had no weight in the argument that the police had substituted the accused with the real culprit. had gone. The police had all the evidence of the prosecution, undoubtedly consisting of police witnesses, but their testimony was as good as that of public witnesses. And the noncompliance of section 103, CCP had no involvement in the matter. Because his application was dismissed by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, all of the prosecution witnesses remained in their positions and did not shake their testimony during the defense cross-examination, contrary to the prosecution's testimony. No allegations of harassment or outrage were found. The accused, who falsely implicated in the head constable's case, in his inspection of the supply of drug samples recovered from the Office of the Prosecutor of the Chemical Inspector Syed, questioned the delay of 9 days despite providing the opportunity. Some other material contained drug addicts to replace samples or recovered materials, a large amount of 180kg of post was recovered by the police,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
