Section 9 (c) and 29 drug trafficking and smuggling evidence was defined as the driver of the vehicle and all the articles contained in it were in his possession and in the present case, 116 packets of marijuana, 58 packets of marijuana and 18 packets of opium were recovered, the accused alleging that he was innocent about drug trafficking, hiding in specially designed caves, was not feasible. The driver of the vehicle was not denied the vehicle. The prosecution witnesses have no background in hostility / have no ill will with the accused, the question that the accused was declared a real culprit, he did not contest, the prosecutor's witnesses recovered huge quantities of drugs. Could not be emphasized, which could not be leveled against him. Once the prosecution established its case, then under Section 29 of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act, 1997, the burden was transferred to you, Pune accused of proving against the prosecution's request, but the defendant denied the issue. Had failed to record that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the proper procedure was taken in connection with the destruction of the case property, not specifically and seriously. The witnesses were examined in detail by the defense lawyer in this regard, but nothing came out of their mouths to benefit the accused, recovering evidence in relation to the quantity of the narcotics, And sent for chemical analysis, through which they were consistently welcomed. Execution
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
