Sections 9 (c) and 29 law martyrdom (10 of 1984), Article 122, the evidence against intoxicants was the charge against the accused persons that they had 50 kg heroin bag trial court convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. ? They were fined Rs 50,000 each, both accused confessing their presence in the seized vehicle at the time of the raid and did not deny the fact that the confiscated truck was not recovered from the secret caves. There was a passenger sitting in the passenger seat. While the other suspects were found in the driving seat on the front of the truck and the prosecution was able to prove the accused's recovery and arrest, the arrest of the accused could not benefit from poor defense evidence but from his initial duties to prove the case. The prosecution was not released. Narcotic substance against the suspects beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 29 of the Control 29 of the Control Act 1997, the burden falls on the accused. Upon their release, the prosecution proved their case against an accused, who was driving the truck when he was stopped, because he could not make the prohibition. The other suspect, although he was in the vehicle, did not have any evidence that he was either a cleaner or auxiliary in the truck and had not recovered any dirty material, so his case would have been settled in different locations. The second defendant, who was the driver of the truck, accepted an appeal filed by the accused who was not operating the truck, and the trial court had sentenced him to a limit and the sentence was set aside and he was acquitted.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
