Section 9 (c) Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 166 (1) (4) of the Police Rules, 1934, RR 25 3 and 25 4 Define drug arrest and trafficking evidence. After information about the faulty inquiry complaint / Section H, the suspects arrived on the spot (which was a bus stop), after traveling 20 km, went to another police station without reporting to Section HO. , The other police station complainant (section HO) arrested the accused while he was sitting at the bus stop, which was inevitable. Section HA had become a complainant and had filed an FIR at the Area Police Station, but said that the Department HA had neither recorded nor investigated the statements of the prosecution witnesses. And without any legal order, copies of the FIR were handed over to the complainant who allegedly brought the PDSP verbal orders to his own police station. And conducted the investigation itself and presented the invoice in such a way that it appears malicious and illegal, which cannot be retained in law because it violated the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as well as Is also violated. In the present case itself, it was evident that only one of the two witnesses was produced before the court, which was also supervised by the trial court where the complainant had investigated. The court must examine both witnesses. The law was required. And the court should also satisfy itself with the facts of this case when it was said that in cases where death sentence or life imprisonment is punishable, the trial court should be careful as it cannot be sentenced to death under such special circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
