The definition of evidence in Section 9 (c) and 46 drug possession was alleged to have been the only employee / driver of the truck from which the marijuana in question was recovered, while at the same time the same person drove by another person. Who was a resident. And the other person was the actual owner of the truck; It was alleged that he was unaware of the presence of drugs in the truck and police let the man / truck owner escape and planned to recover against it. The political deputy tehsildar confirmed that the joint statement of the elders of the area denied the accused's base and thought that neither it was said that the other person was a resident of the area nor did he know. The name is recovered from the fuel tank. The truck that was part and parcel of the truck's oommission to the fuel tank in preparation for the charge will be careless and can often be termed an error that has no bearing on the merits of the matter. This score cannot be ignored, as all witnesses agree in their statements because contradictions were identified by the prosecutor's lawyer in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses regarding the fact of recovery so important that the fact of the recovery could fail. There was nothing on record to indicate that any of the prosecution witnesses had any enmity or illicit desire with the accused, which could constitute one of the reasons for his falsification. The trial court's jurisdiction question had no effect. Will The case was recovered and the trial was conducted in accordance with the notification of the Provincial Government issued in consultation with the Chief Justice HC.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
