Section 9 (c) Rules of the Drugs (Government Analysts), 2001, 4r and 5 arrested and smuggled intoxicants, praising the police inspector who appeared as a witness, almost almost immediately complaining I repeat the story I told. Minutes of details of the narcotics recovered from the suspect's testimony were confirmed by another police officer who was a member of the Raiding Party, a consultant for the accused in violation of Security 103, the CRPC. Was also, because Section 25 of Section 25 Narcotic Material Stances Act Control 1997 1997 1997, the application of the CRPC clause was excluded, the place of recovery from drug cases was not a public place, but a house. ? There was no possibility of any private person witnessing this action, especially at night when the incident occurred, as provided in RR 4 and 5 of the Narcotic Material Stances (Rule of Government Analysts) Rule 2001, Code of Conduct 2001 The instructions were in nature and were not necessary. , Along with the fact that it did not confiscate the main law of seventy kilograms of hashish, and 13/2 kilograms of opium was recovered from the defendants at the behest / capture. And the defendants never claimed that they had not recovered such a large quantity of the drug, although it was sent to the laboratory 15 days after the drug was recovered, but the defense could not prove that the samples were in this period. Delayed Submitting samples to the laboratory, not proving a prosecution case, was not fatal. Positive information from the laboratory supported the prosecution's case, the suspect arrested on the spot, revealed that his brother / co-accused
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
