According to the testimonial of the testimony of the appellant in section 9 (c) the arrest and smuggling of narcotics, the accused and the accomplices were arrested by a police barricade and arrested 99kg of hashish, 48kg of hashish and 38kg of opium. Exported. The trial court sentenced the suspects and co-accused under the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, to the secret scabies of the truck they were running. The convictions of the accused and the accompanying accused were that they had been arrested from their home and shown to them incorrectly. Prosecutors were arrested on the spot, and that the alleged drug was recovered against them. In this case, the prosecution was presented to prove it directly (eyewitness account) and it was also proved that the witness was the witness of the account. And the recovery memo, in all its material aspects of recovery and despite the lengthy scrutiny, remained both constant and inconsistent. Good things could not be obtained from them. Drug recovery was also proven through a report by the Franz Science Laboratory. The prosecutor was also able to prove the safe custody and transit of the sample, and confessed to the defendants and co-accused in connection with their home arrest. Was. In making its statements under Section 342, CRPC, and under oath under Section 340 (2), the CCP introduced such a story for the first time, during a hearing inspection by the accused and the co-accused The defense raised failed to prove the request. The prosecution surpassed any suspicion of involving the accused and co-accused in a false case
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
