The idea of seizing illegal articles in section & ill 29, Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, has the court the responsibility to hold a trial under the Act in which the accused is under the Act What was the crime, unless the contrary was proved. The drug was in drug possession at that time, after which the prosecution had to establish the fact that the drug was obtained from the possession of the drug accused, and the court must recognize that the accused was guilty, unless the accused Do not prove that such drugs are not in his possession. The prosecution was to establish whether the accused had any direct connection with the narcotic drug or otherwise, and if it was proven to maintain or physically maintain the article, then to prove it The burden was on the accused to not knowingly occupy the subject. The prosecution's practical difficulty to prove something of the accused's specialized knowledge, forcing the legislature to think that I was placed on F prosecution, would be frustrating to object to the control of the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, a knowledge of this crime. The mandatory component was because the word possession was in the context of section 6 of the Control of Drugs Act 1997. According to the law, the purpose of the legislation could not have been merely physical custody without the knowledge of the crime, so the prosecution under the Controlling Section 29 of the Drugs Sub-Cases Act 1997 was only to show by the evidence that the accused was accompanied by the drug What is the matter Was in substance or its physical custody; or directly related to it, unless the accused has provided proof that the evidence
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
