Section 9 (c) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 353 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (e) prohibits a civil servant from paying his duties for drugs and weapons and assault or criminal force. The passing of testimony, the lack of prosecution testimony, the evidence provided in support of this case and the defense investigation failed to disperse it, the trial court correctly concluded that the alleged drug The items were first obtained from the personal possession of the accused. And secondly, on his identification, in the relevant quantities mentioned in the joint memorandum, before the public witnesses, in this case a secure report about the intoxicant was also obtained, which was confirmed by him. No reason was available. By neglecting the witnesses to any extent, such as arrest, search, recovery, and arrest defense, it not only appeared that he had failed to break the prosecution's evidence in cross-examination, but also to attribute certainty to the alleged innocence of the entire accused. Has also failed to defend. A huge sum of Rs 696,579 was recovered from the accused's house in the case. And it is difficult to understand that only such a large amount of money can be formed to falsely implicate the accused, there is no weakness in the trial case under which the accused was convicted and acquitted. Sentenced to death, however, the accused was the first culprit of his family and the lonely bread earner, while his appeal was reduced to seven years - up to five years. Conviction \ RI, without interruption imposing a fine of Rs. 000, \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
