Definitions of evidence for Section 9 (c) and drug possession of 29 drugs were examined at length by the defense counsel for both plaintiff's witnesses, but nothing was obtained in favor of the defendant's account presented by the prosecution's witnesses and he was a Was compatible with the other. In addition to the material aspects of the case, other than the minor contradictions that were natural, there were no material contradictions or improvements. Witnesses said the witnesses had advised the accused that the suspects were very clean of transporters / drivers and vehicles. They had no idea about. Illegal hashish printing Neither the defendants differed from the vehicle's recovery as a driver and cleaner, nor was it disputed before the court. Had to prove and was not burdened. The control has been moved under the assumption contained in Section 29 of the Narcotic Substance Act 1997, however, if the prosecution was taken by the accused, it was a legal section under which to prove her innocence under Section 29 of the Act. In the present case, only the accusation was denied, pleading innocence and saying that his vehicle was hired. The defendant did not present any evidence in his defense by the transport company, which could prove that the alleged bags were brought into his vehicle by his co-accused and there was no substance in the plea made by the accused persons. Was neither found nor was there any evidence in his plea in his defense. To forgive them of the charges
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
