Although alleged drug possession was recovered from the possession of the accused under Section 9 (c) narcotic evidence, in addition to many contradictions, the prosecution witnesses cited the time of their arrival. Had contradicted each other on material points. On the occasion, after the time when the intoxicated car arrived, the number of passengers in the vehicle, the bag with the prohibited weight and the bag, etc. There were strong reasons for denying the statements of the prosecution witnesses. ? Both prosecution witnesses were either not present for the purpose of recording the petition or making false statements either intentionally or directly before the impact. A sample of the alleged restrictions on the fate of the case was obtained at the laboratory with a delay of 41 /. 42 days, the prosecution can neither provide a plausible explanation nor can the state prosecutor justify such delay or legal detention in any hypothetical speculation court, even though the prosecution's evidence was discussed and He was aware of the quality, but was probably affected by the huge amounts involved, benefiting the prosecutor in every possible way, for the safe conduct of justice in such cases, not the amount of sanctions, Rather, consider reaching the standard of evidence presented in court on the facts, circumstances and records available. From the evidence it was concluded that the prosecutor had not been able to prove his case against the accused without suspicion, he deserved a bad sentence and the accused was acquitted and he was acquitted of the charges against him.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
