Section 9 (c) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (X-Xin of 1965), Section 13 Constitution Martyrdom (10 of 1984), Article 122 against the accused and co-accused of smuggling and smuggling of unlicensed arms were charged in the vehicle. As was the case with the passengers; their case was related to the prosecution case; in such cases, it was necessary to prove that the persons (co-accused) were in joint possession and control of the vehicle or had any problem. Or has been dealt with properly. This is especially the case when the intoxicant was placed in the vehicle's trunk or hidden from everyone else. If no evidence has been presented by the prosecutor, it can be pointed out that such persons know that the intoxicant had been concealed. ; Or knew of the above mentioned premises which did not attract the provision of Article 122 of the Lawless Martyrs, 1984. The situation would have been very different if the individuals had thought the property was open or if they had located the property. In such a situation, they needed to explain their status. The testimony of the law would have proved their involvement in the case under Article2 terms of 1984 1984 1984 1984 and without such explanation, the prosecution had failed to prove the knowledge on the part of the accused. And they didn't even know about it. The deployment of drug addicts, therefore, cannot be attributed to the driver / suspect responsible for joint possession of the property. The prosecution had readily proved the presence of the participant in the car; the mere presence of the car involved the accused.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
