Sections 9 (c) and 29 contain the benefit of suspicion of drug possession and smuggling evidence when special convictions were provided under the special law, namely the narcotic substance stances Control Act 1997, when charged with litigation. The prosecution had a heavy burden to prove beyond any reasonable charge. The shadow of a doubt was the crime of seizing intoxicants itself. And if any such substance is consciously seized, then under Section 29 of the Drug Substance Control Act 1997, the person bears the burden of stating how and why this substance is found. In which case was found. And if he fails to disclose the reason, he may be punished severely. The prosecutor must first prove that the substance recovered was intoxicating. Unbelievable evidence statements of the prosecution's witnesses had to be substantiated to prove that the substance was recovered from the possession of the accused person. In the present case, the accused along with his two accomplices were arrested at the airport parking area. I was found to be present. , And from his possession recovered a bag containing 4 kilograms of heroin, of which only one gram of substance was allegedly set aside for a sample of two witnesses who claimed to have been present at the time of the heroin recovery from the accused. Specifically, there was only one gram, five packets of sample was sent to the Office of Chemical Examiner, which contained five grams of heroin as a sample parcel, according to a statement from the prosecution's witness. A positive report was presented before the trial court seed report. The substance recovered from the accused cannot be said with anyone
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
