Sections 9 (c), 21, 22 and 25 Appraising drug arrest and evidence The entire trial could not fail because of the simple reason for the search and arrest procedure that the arrest, capture, in the form of a recovery memo. And the initial investigation was made by a disqualifier. The police officer was expected to arrive at the scene immediately and suspected the culprit / drug involved, in the present case, after the arrest of the complainant handed over the investigation to the sub-inspector who investigated. Was able to complete and submit the invoice section. 25 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Stances Act 1997, in the cases filed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, explicitly excluded the application of Section 103, the CCPC, as a good witness to anyone other than the police officer. Were generally reluctant to testify about recovery or crime, none of the public came forward to participate in the recovery of the drug, etc. Polk was generally reluctant to be a witness in such cases. It was as if the policemen were good witnesses like other public witnesses, unless there was any hostility, any kind of hostility by the accused There is no evidence of illegal importation. Otherwise the search and arrest of a police officer was just an irregular one. And any illegal action that rejected the chemical examiners' entire report about a chemical test was not questioned by the defense in a trial or appeal, Said's report was received positively, which prompted the complaint. Full proof of evidence presented by the author as well as any hostility or ill-treatment from the recovery witnesses
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
