Section 9 (b) definition of evidence of drug possession and trafficking The evidence of both prosecutors' testimony was the same on all material details, such as the date, time, place, and method of restitution. There is no material contradiction in the evidence. Was found. Some minor contradictions found in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses could not be sufficient to cut the roots of the prosecution case. Such contradictions were bound to occur over time, the Chemical Examiner's positive report presented in the evidence. Was done The police officers were just as good as any other public witness; in the absence of any malpractice or misconduct of the police officers, in the present case, the prosecution's witnesses had no problem in banning the accused. It was proved by the evidence that the accused was found in possession of intoxicants. He failed to exclude the burden of proving that he was not in the possession of a drug trial court on the basis of sufficient evidence, in which case the decision was dismissed as ineffective. For non-bailable reasons, it was alleged that he remained on bail, his bail was canceled, and the bail was dismissed, and the accused was taken into custody and sentenced to serve the rest of his sentence. So he was jailed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
