The investigator confirmed to the court's question that the informant was supposed to have some substance when he entered the cell, and also confirmed that he had given "this" initial anchor. He also noted that "it is possible that he received it from the informant officer" (ibid., pp. 84, paras. 20-21), who is familiar with the file in general from the summary of the file he receives.
Hearing - This is the operation of an informant, and in the end, the main evidence relating to the act of dubbing is the dubbing video and the transcript of the conversation between the informant and the defendant, and no claim of defects in the video or the transcript of the conversation was made.
The informant was brought to testify because he is the author of the formal statement, and after the witness was brought to testify, the conditions for the invocation of section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance were met, after Muhammad gave in his testimony details that are substantially different from what he gave to the informant.
In addition, during the course of the interrogator's remarks, the interrogator stated that he had met with the informant and had even drawn up a memorandum about that meeting, as detailed below.
Counsel for defendant 1 did not present to the court an informant procedure, which categorically and categorically states the disqualification of dubbing when there is any connection between an investigation officer and an informant, and in the circumstances of our case, after hearing the arguments of the parties, it does not appear that the details that Investigator Saban gave to the informant according to his words were likely to cause a real defect in the dubbing action.
Counsel for defendant 1 argued that the informant tried to downplay his interrogation in a conversation the investigation officer had with him, but no evidence was presented to the court to prove this assumption.
Even if it was correct to waive the presence of the interrogator in the briefing given by the informant officer, and even if it was correct to waive the conversation between the interrogator and the informant, (and the accusing counsel even agrees to this – p. 348, paras. 13-17), I have not found it to determine that if this was done, it was in any way defective in the act of dubbing.