Section 9 (c) Proof of intoxicating substance The benefit of the complaint was that the passenger bus failed to prove the physical presence of the accused at the time of the prohibited recovery from the prosecution, in which case, at least, he should present evidence. The impression is that the suspect was aware of the ban on the passenger bus, but this was not done. The behavior of the accused was very natural and innocent. After the recovery of the bus from the bus, he contacted the police party and introducing himself as the owner of the vehicle was certainly not criminal prosecution, there is no doubt that his recovery. Was proved. The prohibited item from the passenger bus, however, was found to be the missing link between the exported ban and the positive chemical report, which revealed severe suspicion over the prosecution's version of the evidence retrieval of the prosecution's evidence, while 20 slabs of chars. Were recovered, while the trial court had shown in its inspection that no such contradiction was confirmed by the Prosecution Investigation Officer, despite the names of the driver and conductor being provided or arrested. No action was taken to include Investigation; it did not verify the ownership of the vehicle with the registration authority But there are doubts in the prosecution, the accused is suspected of course could not prove capable of reasonable doubt, the accused will be punished against the prosecution. And the accused was convicted by the trial court, and they were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge under Section 9 (c) of the Drug Substances Act, 1997 and their
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
