Evidence of the seizure of intoxicants of Section 9 (e) According to the statement of the co-accused under Article 342, CR PC, he was traveling as a passenger in a covered vehicle. And he had no problem with the vehicle, nor could there be a fatal question that the suspect could not be linked to the crime, unless both facts were proved, when the driver of the driving vehicle was discovered. There was nothing on record by the main suspect to prove that the co-accused had no information about the cash, no evidence was available that the co-accused was the partner of the main suspect / driver of the vehicle. There was no conscious information that he was being banned from the vehicle. And that their joint possession was joint possession, to the extent that the co-accused had contributed to the fact that the alleged suspect belonged to the accused and that the accompanying accused had been confirmed by the fugitive accused, which was in large numbers and There was nothing on the record to show. Prohibited ownership of the confidential company's secret cows was not linked to the crime because the owner, knowledge and ownership of the premises were not proven. The evidence cannot be punished to the co-accused. Against that, the situation was set aside
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
