Section 9 (c) drug possession evidence review Two judges of the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of possessing 17kg of hashish recovered from prosecutors' testimonies from the kitchen of his home, but he was solely responsible for it. I blame him for being me. One packet contained one kilogram of hashish, of which six grams were taken as a sample for chemical analysis and it was exempted from the remaining 16 kilograms of hash relief, which was reported by PLD 2004 According to C 856 and two decisions of the Supreme Court have been made. In this regard, two other benches of equal number of judges have already taken the opposite view of the SCMR 991 of 2008, in cases already reported as SCMR1899 of 1988 and SCMR54 of 2003. In the sense that there was no need to sample from each packet. One situation, apparently, in the case reported as PLD 1995 SC 423, was that the Supreme Court had to follow the rule that it had formulated, which is that if the bench of equal judges does not comply. ? Agree with the preceding Bench of Equal Judges, then the matter should be referred to a larger Bench because of the conflict of Supreme Court decisions at the said point, the High Courts and the subordinate courts are making the decision and among them Will choose to apply any decision. The case, which was apparently causing a miscarriage of justice, was now left at the discretion of the High Courts and the subordinate courts to take advantage of or to a particular accused, which was frustrating the intention of lawmakers and Was reducing the rigors of the law. This is called the Protoso of Control of the Gulf
