In section 9 (c) and 29 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), the value of section 342 drug recovery evidence pleaded guilty to life imprisonment that it was improperly trapped. Nothing was available to prove that the quantity of the substance recovered was exaggerated or that all packets recovered from the vehicle were anything other than drug paradoxes or contradictions. Were not proved, if anyone, in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, was not of the nature of the accused highlighted, they could negate the recovery, which would result in the termination of the entire version of the prosecution. The absence of a motive by witnesses to rule out the possibility of finding an ounce of liars to prove a defense request Yes, he was charged under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997 to indicate that he indicated that he had committed any intoxicating matter in the vehicle. Was unaware of the presence and his statement could be cited under Section 342, in which he declined to provide any defense evidence. In support of his innocence, he was accused of being the driver of a motor vehicle that was in control of a vehicle that he had full knowledge of, even though the presence of anything in the vehicle was in any way possible. The existence of a ban did not create a question of ignorance. The accused was proved beyond any doubt and the trial court correctly sentenced and sentenced the trial court to any imprisonment of any kind.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
