Articles 9 (c) and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), section 103 conviction of evidence appreciation, reduction of witnesses to the material prosecution, chance of occurrence, location of the scene, weapons and ammunition recovered and drug possession. Agreed. The chemical palm of the vehicle driven by the chemical analyst, the sample of the prohibited articles sent by the chemical analyst was also found marijuana and opium by the Chemical Examiner, it was impossible for police officers to carry such drugs. Otherwise, it was not so in his statement under Section 2342, CRPC, which was claimed by the accused, which was alleged by the police officers, the matter was impersonation / checking and the prosecution witnesses were examined by the investigating party. As a member, his presence on the occasion was authorized by the natural police officer Witnesses like WoW, their evidence could not be excluded simply because they were police employees. The defense lawyer's attention to the non-inclusion of a private witness had no power because the Section 25 of the Narcotic Sub Minutes Act The request for Section 103 of 1997 was dismissed, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the CCPC was confirmed by a chemical analyst report which had a positive delay. A few days of sending samples to the laboratory due to rush of work, to no avail, as large quantities of drugs were recovered from the vehicle's secret caves in the presence of the accused for display / non-exposure / exposure. The trial property was not enforceable on the objection because the property was destroyed according to the law and the samples obtained from it were shown on record.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
