The testimony of Section (C) was intoxicating evidence, the prosecution's testimony was lacking in the statement that the accused had been arrested and the marijuana was recovered from the jeep, which was running through the record. It was revealed that the bundle of marijuana was recovered from a bundle of 30 jeeps. Each bundle weighed one kilogram. The prosecution in the case was incontrovertible, so far as the recovery of the prohibited marijuana was concerned. An FIR submitted to the chemical analyst for his expert opinion only four bundles weighing four kilograms of the suspect's arrest shows that each The sample was not extracted from a single bundle, the evidence of the prosecution was still solid until the foursome recovery, but the fact is that the prosecution's case was ambiguous, since not every bundle sample was taken in such a situation and strange. Under the circumstances, recovery of four kilograms could be blamed for the commission of the crime, only the legally speaking accused could not be held responsible for the remaining four. And remained unconfirmed and unverified when convicted on the basis of the quantities of recovery of drug addicts, For this, it should be the basic standard that it was recovered that it was all addictive and for that purpose it had to take all precautions and the case was to prove foolproof unless the accused had a drug specific. The quantity involved proved that until it was alleged that the property was in the possession of the complainant. This was a problem because it could be a police officer
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
