Section 9 (c) defines the possession, import, export and smuggling evidence of intoxicating goods. The prosecution's case was that when the coach stopped, a plastic bag was placed on the shoulder of a boy, causing it to move. And upon seeing the police party, he tried to escape, but he was subjected to force, one of the prosecution's witnesses said, the substance recovered was lying on the floor of the coach on which the accused. Laid his legs and when the accused was stopped at the instruction of Section H by the coach, he himself picked it up. And the suspect, along with three other passengers, was seizing the coach's back seat. Another witness, the prosecutor, stated that while stopping the coach, the suspect placed a plastic bag from the coach on his shoulder, which the police party observed. Tried to escape. The cross-examination witness said the suspect was sitting on the second seat of the chemical examiner's coach, saying he had received samples of the team's alleged drug history and 13th history of color retrieval, from which the suspects were found. Denied, even in the absence of it, it was clear that an analysis of the entire record of the case shows that the prosecutor, due to the privileged statements of the prosecution witnesses, was able to stand trial and prosecute the accused. The trial court failed to prove the conviction. On the one hand, he was acquitted and in the circumstances, he was released
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
