Section,, & and (c) Appreciating the Evidence of Drugs and Smuggling In the present case, what can be said most against the accused persons that they were taking marijuana in the truck was not proved by which it The suspects appear to have been smuggled - involved in the trade or sale of marijuana, which makes sense in the case of section 8 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, when something was in moving goods (such as a truck), Of course one was moving from one place to another which was not enough by itself, the question under Section 6 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Act 1997 was whether The narcotic drug / substance was being copied by the accused, under the control of Narcotic Control Section 6. In the specific context of the Substances Act, 1997 and the Messenger, it could be said that the prohibited possession of the prohibited drugs in the cannabis or He had the riders in it, the accused must have it. Now if he had possession of something or substance, then if he had such possession with the knowledge, then he would have to establish it too. Needless to say, the suspect was particularly aware that the substance or substance he possessed was the drug. Not the owner of the undercarriage truck, but he was merely his driver and his assistant, Charis himself, was not lying in the truck in an open or easily accessible location, but was hidden in a secret compartment inside the truck's body and in a secret compartment. I was not referred or disclosed to any of the accused. It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or could have understood that the victim was in the truck or was riding in. Such facts are reasonably reasonable.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
