Section 9 (c) conviction of testimony due to intoxication, reduction of the chemical inspector's report, shows that he had received two sealed packets, the name of an accused was stated on a packet. However, the chemical inspector's second report also included the name of the co-accused. , It was shown that one packet consisted of black-gray bars, while the other contained a black-gray slab, the prosecution's own case being that no slab was found in the bag recovered from the co-accused. It was not only established that the material recovered from the co-ops was recovered. The accused was sent to the Chemical Examiner at all, even though the material that was sent had negated the testimony of the Excise Officers, there was a material contradiction in the contents of the FIR and the Chemical Examiner's report was suspected. Whether the allegedly recovered material was chemically analyzed to determine its composition to the co-accused and whether it came under the control of narcotic substances. The 1997 Chemical Examiner sent its report to the Excise Inspectorate on 9-5 2006, while the report was signed by the Chemical Examiner on 25-5 2006, 16 days after the date of such dispatch. Will be indicated. , It was not signed and it was signed either in the Office of the Excise Department or in the court prosecution, without any reasonable doubt in the circumstances beyond which it was unable to establish its case against the co-accused. Was accepted and sentenced and sentenced. Trial under trial
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
