Appraisal of evidence of Section 9 (c) and 29 possession of drug paraphernalia did not prove any intention or illicit desire to falsely implicate the accused in such a felony offense. No attempt was made to revoke the prosecution's case. The Narcotic Substance Act, 1997's mere denial of the allegations and pleading innocence by the accused without conviction was not enough to substantiate their plea through evidence; there was no material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses Was found, which fully supported each other on the material aspect. As was the case with the delay in sending the samples to the forensic science laboratory on the spot, the prosecution's witnesses were subjected to a lengthy investigation, but no question was asked about the facts and circumstances of the case. ? About whether this property presented to the court was tampered with, or whether the samples were not previously sent to the Chemical Examiner for testing purposes. The defendant's lawyer pleaded that the prosecutor failed to state whether the recovered marijuana was raw or pure, and the defendant's lawyer's argument was dismissed because neither question was put on any of the prosecution's witnesses. Neither the form of marijuana, whether raw or purified, would fall outside the scope of the definition of recovered marijuana definition; in view of the quantity of recovered marijuana, the accused who was punished more than 10kg cannot be reduced. The court had no jurisdiction to sentence the trial less than the trial case
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
