SARTAJ versus THE STATE THROUGH DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR
Sections 156 (1) (89), 159 (9) and 2 (c) (a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199, Constitution Petition / Smuggling, the applicant was convicted on charges of smuggling, possession and transportation of chars. And was told that the appellate court upheld the sentence. Validate excise and taxation staff recovered 5780kg of hashish under sugar, loaded with stick in a truck and the applicant was allegedly arrested. Only 4 grams of such large quantities were sent to the laboratory for examination. Was, without getting samples from each packet. The alleged prosecution of Chars could not provide any evidence that Chars was allegedly a foreigner when he was not specifically mentioned in the trial court petitioner's charge against the applicant. He was the owner of the truck and could not prove that the applicant was present in the truck in which capacity the offense was an essential part of the offense under section 156 (1) (8) 9, the Customs Act, 1969 I was required to prove by the conduct of the applicant's guilt that was not established by the prosecution in accordance with the requirements of the law, but the import or removal of certain goods Madam was banned by law. `` No amount of smuggling is required because the smuggling of goods has to be defined in clause 9 155 of the Customs Act 1969 or reported by the federal government under section 2 ()) (a) of the Customs Act. 'S conviction was set aside and he was acquitted of allegations that a constitutional petition was allowed \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
