Appreciation of evidence with Section 9 (c) and 25 addicts was not required by the court to bar the public from becoming a witness in such cases under section 25 of the Investigative Law of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997. There was no choice but to consider the statements of public witnesses, which had no legal restriction, except that the policemen were relying on such good witnesses, if their testimony was based on sound examination. While there was some deterioration during the period, there was no dispute that the recovery of marijuana did not matter. Suggestions to tamper with, without delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner, shall not constitute a Report of the Prosecutor of the Chemical Examiner in connection with the recovery of marijuana with the confidence of the accused and no legal damages Will not face. Weakness, material contradictions or dishonest corrections: The prosecution's witnesses had no enmity with the accused, they had no opportunity to reduce the accused's appeal in a false case.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
