Section 9 (c) The Chemical Examiner, praising the evidence in its report of the three parcels which had been delayed for three days, did not specifically state that the recovered property was opium and hashish. He stated that the samples of marijuana and opium recovered through them were like opium and marijuana. As a specialist in his field, the chemical examiner should have given specific opinion about the allegedly recovered marijuana and prosecuted. Was not inspected on behalf of the Opium Chemical Examiner. His case involved material contradictions in relation to the weighting measures, and his description of the prosecution seemed suspicious in the specific case of the case; the defense of the defendant presented by the accused supported the testimony of the defendants. , Which reported false reading and misuse of evidence. One part of the trial court and the trial court failed to take into account all the legal and material facts that the prosecution case should not be free from doubt, the sentence and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused could not be sustained till the High Court. On a deep re-evaluation of the evidence, he said that this was a case in which the prosecutor had failed to bring the crime home to the accusation, beyond any doubt, allowing the accused to appeal. The trial court acquitted the accused of the case and directed them to be released immediately.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
