Section 9 (c) drug possession, import or prohibition of expert and smuggling evidence defines 7 ml 2kg of marijuana, which was sealed at the time of the arrest of the accused and presented in court and the trial. It was not sealed during. Witnesses were not shown - no suggestion was made cross During cross-examination, it was suggested to the accused that it was not a single bag. Or that the bag did not contain the recovered marijuana, there was no evidence that the bag was not sealed. And at the time of the trial, the signatures of the excise officers and advisers were not in the bag, there was no material contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. There was no doubt that the recovery and possession of drugs / drugs by the accused in the slightest contradictions, there was no doubt that there was enmity or rivalry between the Excise Police and it was alleged that he had inflicted so much on him. By imposing hashish he is trapped in the wrong way. The lawyer for the accused on the bus full of passengers also failed to identify any irregularities or wrongdoing, sent samples to the Chemical Examiner with eight boxes, and the Chemical Examiner prosecution case could not be found ? On the basis that it was dismissed that the investigation was done by the complainant because there was no separate wing of the investigating officer in the department excise, he was not accused of motivating the accused and there was no such allegation. The suspect is alleged to have been prejudiced because of his action. Without any doubt, he has proven his case against the accused. M
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
