The trial court correctly found evidence of the evidence relating to the smuggling of Articles 9 (c) and 29 intoxicants, found that the confidentiality of the vehicle driven by the accused amounted to 99kg of heroin powder and 4kg of weight. The recovery of heroin powder was established by the prosecution. He had full-fledged witnesses who appeared in the trial court against the accused. There was no enmity or rebellion against them, even though the witnesses were officers of the Anti-Narcotic Force, but in the absence of enmity or enmity, they were equally capable. The witnesses were as many as other public witnesses. And his testimony cannot be dismissed solely on the basis that he was a member of the Anti-Narcotic Force, all witnesses to the prosecution who witnessed the prohibited export of the vehicle driven by the accused, were still permanently Was intact. , Despite lengthy scrutiny by the defense, the location and methods of recovery were concerned, there was no reason to dismiss his testimony, the trial records on record before the defendant was sentenced. After considering every evidence, the defendant's defense version was rightly rejected. Establishment of the case based on the eyewitness testimony, which the defense did not disperse to any extent during the investigation, the report of the Franz Science Laboratory regarding the samples, was controversial in which the accused did not exclude his burden. ? It means that the decision and order of the Section 29 trial of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Ampo was well established and did not require interference and the conviction of the offender was maintained and the appeal was enforced.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
