Section & and (c) drug possession was in the driver's control of the value of the evidence; therefore, there was no possibility that he had no knowledge of the recovered article hidden in the secret caves and was being tanked. It is safe to say that the narcotics were hidden by the driver for his transport or delivery purposes.The prosecutor had to show that the co-accused was either the owner, the cleaner or the tanker's assistant, or that he had hidden secrets He was known to hide the prohibited material and had to prove in litigation that the accused was involved in the case. Neither he was the owner nor the cleanliness, so prosecutors failed to prove their knowledge of the establishment of cows or hideouts. The use of recorded drugs did not prove that the co-accused was involved in the transportation of recovered goods. By no means was the accused involved nor did the prosecutor establish a co-accused's alliance with the driver, the tanker, or the goods recovered, so the prosecutor failed to bring a lawsuit. In the case of the co-accused, the case of the accused driver was disproportionate to the scope of doubt, therefore, the High Court has decided that Uphold the sentence and sentence while the co-accused was acquitted of the change accordingly the appeal was dealt with.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
