Section 9 (c) drug possession, recovery of 235kg of marijuana in the value of evidence and 7kg of opium recovered from the suspect in a car while traveling, proved that there was contradiction in the evidence of recovery. The timing, manner and arrest of the accused, being of a minor nature, could not eliminate the apparent value of the recovery witnesses. The stand that the police officer did not commit to the recovery of a public witness despite receiving prior notice was not sustainable. The Control of the Narcotic Sub Maintenance Act 1997 dismissed the application of Section 103, CCPC, in such cases, unless otherwise, the police could not engage any public witness in one such case. Because usually people will not cooperate with it. Police did not object to inadequate sampling of ten grams of each drug in response to the drug peddlers' refusal to retrieve the drugs through suspects, so the Chemical Examiner sent reports to the Chemical Examiner. Gaya, therefore, was rightly convinced by the trial court police officer who would arrest the accused and recover the drug substance from them. Acting as a complainant should be investigated there and unless the actual discrimination arose due to the double acts of the police officer, the trial could not be punished and in the circumstances the conviction of the accused could not be sustained. Was kept
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
