THE STATE/ANTI NARCOTICS FORCE versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ
Sections 6 and 9 (c) of the law based on the testimony of testimony (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), section 417 drug possession (fours. 15400 grams and opium one kilo) Appeal was not filed against the prosecution of the complainant inspector, the departure registration number was prepared, according to his deposition, the admission of the Department Tour was maintained, under Section 161, CRPC under the FIR And statements, mention of departure and departure mention were not found. And during the cross-inspection, the mobile vehicle complainant inspector's registration hinders the head of the raiding party, the complainant, the seasoning officer, the investigating officer, the charge inspector and the Additional Section HO Practice of Investigation Officer and the complainant. To be the same. The Independent Investigation Complaint Inspector wore six hats at once, which raised serious doubts about INDIP. In the present case, a regular investigation was carried out, but nothing on the record showed that the Complainant Inspector worked in the Investigation Wing. It was, when he investigated the present case, that going to the root of the matter alone would result in a material flaw in the trial. Investigation quorum Nan Joyce did not mention in the document the arrest and recovery notes, the date of the opium recovery, the color of the handbag from which the marijuana was stored, and the number of boxes and bars of currency notes recovered from the accused. Counselors for packets of marijuana and opium were not mentioned.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
