Definition of Sections 9 (c) and 25 Evidence. The complainant, an excise inspector, had forgotten the fact that a complaint was made about the arrest of the accused in the FIR and the recovery of 280kg of marijuana from the secret cave of the truck. No question was asked or denied regarding the arrest and recovery of a large quantity of marijuana anywhere in the investigation, the testimony of the witness was irrelevant, the prosecution's second witness, in the same manner completely. Was dismissed as if the complainant had been removed. Both said there was a difference in the prosecution's witnesses' investigation. Their evidence was consistent with each other on the material aspects of the case related to the arrest and recovery of marijuana, and no material was prepared by the defense party to benefit the accused. Delivered to the Control Section 25 of 1997. The police talked about the evidence of the officers who could be treated well because the evidence of any independent witness could be that the evidence of the police officers could not be dismissed simply for the reasons that section 103 was applicable. Was a police officer, CRPC was also deposed. From the Proceedings of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act, 1997, it was alleged that all advisers are police officers. Their testimony cannot be believed, it was repudiated, if in the circumstances, the drug was obtained in small quantities by the accused. So, it was not obligatory for the prosecution to send the entire drug quantity to the chemical executor. And everyone was a great addict
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
