The definition of section (9) (c) and 15 evidence affected the alleged recovery of drugs from the suspects on a busy road that was always crowded with heavy traffic, and the investigating officer chose to witness the recovery of two police officers. And even one of these later statements by the prosecution regarding the prosecution's witness statement and the amount of the restriction, which contradicted the amount presented to the court, led to the prosecution's evidence on suspicion of recovery. Had expressed doubts. The one who allegedly got rid of the opportunity and did not arrest him as an accused by the prosecution was another obvious defect, which created doubts in the mind of a careful person, that the real culprit was the prosecutor. The pardon was granted, which was not recovered despite the defense lawyer's objection by the alleged prosecutor Chris, who is subject to a property inspection case of the alleged suspect in the co-accused's car. There was no evidence against him because he was not present with the accused nor was he in direct possession at the time of the alleged drug recovery. The contraband was no recovery. The statement of the accused was not admissible at the time of the conviction of any of the accused and nothing was brought on the record that he was convicted in other cases allegedly registered, no evidence was on record. That the co-accused was either facilitated, or someone assisted. Under Section 15 of the Anti-Drug Substances Act, 1997, the conviction of the accused accused could not be retained, the accused was sentenced by trial, both were acquitted.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
