The testimony of section 9 (b) of drug possession and smuggling cannot be construed to set aside the property of the case, when the prosecution did not examine the property in the custody of the person who was in possession of the case at that time. If the police officers were charged with particular enmity and illicit accusations, then it is the prosecutor's responsibility to examine the independent person in the locality and prove their case, but in this case it was not done. The witness did not fully confirm his officer's statement, and did not indicate whether anyone, including the driver, was satisfied. Whether or not an attempt was made to do so. There has been a clear violation of the provisions of section 103, CRPC. In the case, the conviction of the accused on the mere possibility of a trial was not sustained in the law, but the trial court's decision in the cases was separated. Was done.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
