Section 9 (c) evidence of drug and smuggling was allegedly recovered from hidden cavities in a fuel tank of a motorist operated by a policeman and had not taken possession of the accused's driver's license. If it was not for one thing, it was not invoiced under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, to prove that the same person was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time, when the recovery of the prohibited recovery affected. According to the prosecution's testimony, the car was not owned by the accused, but was owned by the other person, The call was not made because the prosecution in the case had to prove the accused's relationship with the motorist, the prosecution's witnesses in question were contradicted each other, the prosecutor was unsuccessful beyond his reasonable doubt. Set up the case, the trial court approved, the verdict was granted, and the accused was acquitted. And was released, under circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
