Section 9 (a) (c) FIR, challan and recovery memorandum of appreciation of evidence for drug arrest and trafficking shows that 1050 grams of hashish, which consists of 20 pieces of different sizes, were recovered from the accused. Is gone Out of which 10 grams of marijuana was isolated and left for chemical analysis, which weighs each marijuana, was recovered from the accused and could not be identified nor relevant documents. Attempts have been made by the complainant during the preparation of The report was contradicted by a report sent by a chemical examiner to a chemical examiner, who had only one marijuana piece in the sample obtained by his office, and was in the form of a stick, which had different The possibility of marijuana being found was rejected. Together, either deliberately or not producing one piece consisted of 20 pieces of 1050 grams of different size, according to the principle of average, if 20 pieces of marijuana were evenly distributed, then each slice. Will be within bounds. 52 to 53 grams charged, under the circumstances, only 52/53 grams of marijuana will be responsible for the sample from which the prosecution was unsuccessful. In the case of the accused, the recovery of 1050 grams of marijuana proved beyond reasonable doubt. Exclude this case, under the circumstances, did not come to the detriment of clause (C), but to the scope of clause (A) and into section 9 of the control. The defendant of the Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, was sentenced to 11 months 4 days, and received 4 months and 15 days exemption. The unexpected part of his sentence was stated with a fine of 5 years, 8 months and 1 day and the appeal was dismissed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
