Investigating the evidence in Section 9 (b), the prosecution's witnesses agreed in all aspects of the case. No contradiction can be identified in the evidence, so that no contradiction was made in the prosecution's case, no hostility, unlawful desire or animosity was alleged. In the absence of a solid and tangible animosity to falsely impeach the accused against the prosecution's witnesses, a large quantity of kilograms of heroin cannot be emphasized, which the defense did not prove to be an abortion. As a result no misspelling or proof was read. Justice was identified in this case, in which the provisions of section 103, CCPC were not applicable under section 25 of the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, witnesses to the prosecution were natural witnesses as members of the raiding party. And their testimony cannot simply be denied. As an employee of the police force, the accused confessed to the raid and the heroin was recovered from beneath the bed of the robe. I was not the only to argue that some other persons also occupied the house; upon proof of the prosecution's recovery, the accused had not been relieved of their burden under Article 29 of the said Act and the Chemical Examiner. The report stated that the culprits were not proven guilty or did not face any weakness. umstances r \ n
