Articles 9 (c) and 29 define the evidence of drug smuggling and smuggling of narcotics from the vehicle which was under the control of the accused. The driver and owner of the vehicle did not refuse to recover the vehicle when they were Was driving In view of such an acknowledged position, the contradictions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which were under consideration, will be considered in the legal speculation of the offense, as would be the case against the accused. Provided under Section 29 of the Controlled Act of 1997, the accused claimed his innocence. The basis of the admission of the co-accused, while responding to the allegations, was such that the accused had little benefit as the co-accused confessed to his crime only to the extent of four kilograms of hashish, while he recovered the rest of the narcotic goods. No concern expressed. 25kg was an established fact, but the defendant had no explanation for the remaining 21kg of weight, the rest of the accused had to calculate 21kg of drug substance, from which the vehicle recovered was a proven. The fact was, in the circumstances, he had completely failed to present a case in his favor, the defendant was convicted under trial.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
