The section & & (c) Conan testimony (of 10 of 10), the clause of 40 definitions of both drug arrest and smuggling evidence recovered only after the disclosure of the same thing, Article 40, the law can be used against the accused in the sense of testimony, the prosecution of 1984 successfully proved that the recovery of the prohibited goods was not questioned by bus. Section 340 (2), CRP. Enter the witness box to record your statements under the C, nor did they present any defense witness, the statements were charged under Section 342; He did not say anything, except that he lacked the information because the accused was the driver and the conductor of the bus, he was under legal obligation to provide proper justification and satisfy the court's consciousness that the justification. They both present that they did not know how to hide the prohibited items because they found out when the bus was ready to depart, the accused failed to attract any situation if the prosecution's case. I failed to raise any doubts about their involvement. Regarding the involvement of the accused, then these techniques should be avoided The accused was not the owner of the bus, but within the scope of Section 6 of the Control of Drug Substances Act 1997, the person shall have the responsibility Was in control. Prohibited goods were found in the four corners of Section 6 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Act, 1997. Recovering from the secret caves of the bus had an impact on the identification of both suspects, on behalf of the accused persons.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
