Article 3 of the Restriction (Enforcement) Order 1979, Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement Limitation) Order, 1979, was not attracted in this case because the accused was neither involved in the import, The statements of the prosecution's witnesses for the export, transportation, manufacturing, processing or sale of alleged marijuana were also subject to the display of the Franz Science Laboratory report on the recovery of allegations of inconsistent, contentious, and controversial prosecutions. The marijuana, so as to confront the accused, was given the opportunity to send him to the test, but this was not the case where the report of the forensic science laboratory was not exhibited nor any questions were presented. In section 234, under the CRPC, in its statement regarding the accused, this prosecution was subject to mystery and suspicion. Recovery cannot be used to accuse the accused of the crime, it is alleged that he is the child's favorite child of the law, taking advantage of the doubt, if found in the prosecution case, for all purposes. The extension of the accused to the trial court was not justified. To convict the accused, the trial court set aside the unjustified verdict of conviction and sentence and the accused was acquitted of the charges leveled against him, the accused, who was on bail, was liable under the bail bond. Was retired.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
