Section 9 (b) evidence of drug possession was inconsistent with the court's ruling regarding the hearing of the petitions, under which the right to examine witnesses was already bound by the court, on the basis that it was closed. That a witness was absent. The day the matter was pending before the trial court and in case the notice was issued to the state, the trial would continue as the trial court's order seemed a bit harsh. Because either the aforementioned witness should have been prosecuted for absenteeism or the prosecution may have been granted immunity by the prosecution for recording the remaining witnesses, directing the trial court. At the same time the application was accepted that at least one opportunity was given to the applicant to examine the witness, if they were present with other relevant witnesses, if not other witnesses were presented despite the services of the notice. So, appropriate actions for appearing in court against them are warranted, including the issuance of bail or bail.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
