The definition of evidence of section 9 (c) drug possession and smuggling, in the present case, was replaced by the police, which was assessed by the conduct of the police, who, after taking the accused's personal bail, The jurisdiction of the jurisdiction, after the release of the original accused in the case, after the release of the original accused in the case, the police were prosecuted by the trial court, the correct evaluation of the evidence on record And failed to appreciate it, the investigating officer admitted that in fact, neither the samples were drawn in his presence, nor They were sent to the Franzic Science Laboratory, and parcels were not made in his presence. And it was also not reported by the forensic science laboratory prosecution, failing to provide any plausible explanation for the delay in sending samples for analysis, despite having prior knowledge regarding drug trafficking. Failure to make proper arrangements to attach the independent witnesses to strengthen the litigation case, Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, section 103 of the Cases under the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, CCP The request was dismissed, but the investigating officer has a clear explanation for it Shall. Failure to comply with such provisions of the law alleges that he was substituted by the police. And the real culprit was freely convicted, the accused could not be denied on false charges, the prosecution's witnesses were declared, they were declared as opposites.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2015
