Sections 9 (c) and 25 suspected benefit of the possession of narcotics was no seal in the parcel of the recovered banned chars. The non-fixing of a seal on the parcel made the narcotics suspicious and some pieces of four. Were also found to be intoxicated, which was quite different from the rest of the lot, and it was not known whether the parcel's condition was four or empty, making the prosecution's case extremely suspicious in those cases. Was. The conductor and the driver of the underground bus, who were very important witnesses, should have been referred to as prosecution witnesses and should have been investigated as their deployment may have been helpful to the prosecution, but they could be investigative. This kind of mistake was also suspected. The prosecution's version of the narcotics fact was recovered from the accused's conscious, but he said that the evidence of the prosecution was not proved physically and consciously, no tickets were recovered to show that the accused was the same. While traveling on the bus, such error would be suspected as the accused refused to travel on the bus even though Section 103 was removed by Section 25 of the CRPC. Control of the Narcotic Substance Act 1997, but had to be complied with when no prior information was available In the present case when advance information was available, the association with the retrieval of public independent witnesses was necessary, despite the non-participation of public witnesses on recovery. Prior information in the prosecution case was deadly, a sample of the prohibited chars was sent for a chemical analysis with a delay of 27 days, which would lead to prosecution against the accused.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
