The conviction of the value of evidence on the possession of Section 9 (c) drugs, the trial court's reduction, had convicted the appellant under Section 9 (c) of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Was sentenced and fined. The convicts' ten 50, Con Con Con convictions were that the sample collected from the allegedly recovered substance was insufficient, and that the accused was a minor offender and had no criminal history, so, The investigating officer's justification was silent as the sentence deserved to be reduced. How many sleepers were sampled, in the circumstances, it was stated that not every goldsmith was extracted from the sample, therefore, it was not possible to assume that it was the cannabis rods otherwise the suspect was a young offender. Was not guilty of A career in history and intoxicants shows that he was behind bars for the past seven years, which means he served a large part of his share. The sentence for the former passenger was reduced, but the appeal for the fine amount, 000, 50,000 was upheld, accordingly.
