Section 9 (c) drug possession Testimonial evidence did not benefit from the suspect's possession of marijuana, but was recovered from a hiding place in the bus when the anti-narcotics force searched and did not object to the search. What. The bus and the police cooperated with the party while other inmates of the bus objected to it, which clearly showed the possibility that it was not in the knowledge of the accused that the spy was in the bus and the name of the accused did not be known. ? Neither one of the smugglers, nor the prosecutor, has provided any evidence of a trust in which the accused had cited impressive evidence to link the accused, since the owner of the bus was not involved in the case, If the accused was the bus driver, he was employed by the bus owner. And this fact should have been proved by involving the bus owner either as an accused or as a witness, but the owner was not connected to the matter at all and was completely ignored by the accused. There was no material available against which to base. As to his conviction and conviction, neither the fact that the accused was the driver of the bus nor did he prove that he was in any way connected with the recovered charsha with the conviction imposed by the trial court. He was set free from the benefit of the doubt and the accused was acquitted of his charges and was released
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
