Section 9 (c) Use of Suspected Substances The benefit of the suspect was not presented to the trial witnesses before the trial court as to whether each drug packet was sampled or whether the probability of false impacts could be attributed to the recovery officer and the recovery. A witness has already passed. Prior to filing his statement before the trial court, the only material witness presented to the trial court by the prosecution that confirmed the recovery of the certified memo was that the head of the raiding party was not presented to the trial court. And no such failure was predicted. An official was sealed with a monogram (named Engineers) that was not posted at the relevant police station at the time of the alleged recovery from the accused. No explanation was given as to why the monopoly of the Recovery Officer Prosecution in the said parcels. was not. It was claimed that the notes were taken from each slab of the recovered material but the note was recorded by the trial court in order to create the impression that the claim could not be substantiated as alleged under section 342 in its statement. The CCP has claimed that he was falsely involved in the present case because he was instrumental in the arrest of the drug. Baron, who was later convicted and likely to be sentenced to death, was found to have been wrongly involved in the present case, appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
