Sections 9 (b) and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), Section 103 drug arrest and smuggling were found under the testimony of two witnesses, the complainant, and the conscience, who were members of the police party, and He was a professional police officer with experience in searching and seizing and the alleged drug was not considered in the presence of the complainant. According to the complainant, one of the 5 pieces was isolated and sealed for a sample weighing 10 grams, which according to the contents of the chemical report found marijuana, but said that at the time of recording of the complainant's evidence 5 pieces were found. Such as property in court which raised questions twice. Even if more than 5 pieces of marijuana are safe, and which are sent for chemical analysis. And even if 10 grams of the remaining quantity was presented as a narcotic when a sample was extracted from the remaining 5 pieces, private persons, despite the presence, were in serious violation of the provisions of Section 103, CRPC. The search was not associated with the search and recovery. Section 25 of the Control of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 was an exception to the general rule in exceptional circumstances, but the need to employ privateers as advisers was also ignored, wherever possible the Chemical Examiner police Shipping was delayed by 22 days. Extraordinary acceleration was demonstrated in the extraordinary process, leading to the conclusion that the standard of unforgivable evidence lacks the recording of sentencing and sentencing decisions due to the absence of any reasonable doubt. Yes, the prosecution's
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
