Proof of Sections 9 (c) and 48 of the intoxication clause contained contradictions in the statement of the investigating officer's benefit regarding the timing of the preparation of the sending and recovery notes, which contradicted the root of the case. What was Evidence was available about the number of parcels produced. He said he had prepared six parcels, but six parcels and a bundle were presented in court that were not properly sealed. Impressed, the prohibited truck was recovered from secret cavities built for this purpose, and the accused was under investigation for personal possession of the prosecution, whether the drug was present in his secret cavities or no. Whether the truck was in the knowledge of the accused or not, but that did not happen in the case, serious possession of drugs was necessary, and unless such possession was proved, the accused could not be convicted, the prosecution with the accused Had failed to prove that, despite the allegation that the accused was driving the undercover truck, no driver's license was recovered from him. The fact that the accused was not driving the truck, on the occasion the presence of the accused, suspicious, which was also common in the case of the prosecution, the minor witness admitted that parcels were not sealed in his presence. Such a fact was also harmed. Prosecutor's case could not prove to be the exclusive possession of the accused's drug addict. The prosecution has failed to prove the accused without any reasonable doubt. It will benefit the accused.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
