Articles 9 (c) and 25 addicts' definition of drug addiction was as good as a public witness's nervousness as an independent witness simply because they are official witnesses, and their evidence against the accused should not be believed. Should have been dismissed, it was not that if the proper defense wanted the evidence to be dismissed by the defense witnesses, it had to prove that the prosecution's witnesses were hostile to the accused, and that he was wrong. The reason for being stuck was that nothing in this series was available on the record. That there was any reason that the prosecution argued against the prosecution of the prosecution under section 25 of the Anti-Drug Articles Act 1997, Section 103, the application of the CRPC, to not call a witness from the eligible area. Has been deleted. When charged, he did not carry any weight, the press clips were relevant and neither was credible in the evidence. He did not examine the reporter of the newspaper who recovered the drug from anyone other than the accused. I reported that, as far as the private person is concerned with the accused in his defense, it has been observed that the evidence of the defense witnesses in this case does not affect the witness's testimony. And neither were they convinced, from where the accused was arrested, at the time of the arrest of the accused and the recovery of 20 kilograms of hashish from his possession. Both the prosecution witnesses had given each other support material points in his report. There was nothing recorded to justify that his evidence should not depend on the prosecution, in the circumstances, any reasonable suspicion of trial
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
