Sections 9 (c) and 29 Appreciate the preliminary liability evidence for narcotic drugs and prosecution The benefit of the doubt is the initial burden of establishing a "first factor" between the suspect and the prohibitor thereof. Was not performed on. The chain, which established a "first-hand" relationship between the suspects and the unidentified, did not have a registration number of the vehicle in the name of the accused, or any other discriminatory feature of the vehicle from which it was recovered. Evidence of any of the prosecution's evidence was sent to the forensic science laboratory by the name of the constable, Narcotic, where there was no evidence of where the alleged exhibits of the exhibit were stored after his recovery. The forensic science laboratory prosecution offered no plausible explanation for the delay of twelve days when the drug was sent to court for chemical analysis when allegedly recovered and the vehicle certainly not. May be added, in accordance with the mandate of Section 29 of the Control of Drugs Substance, to the prosecution's initial obligation to establish a case. The Act, 1997, was not considered by law, the trial court was implicated in the bulk of the case involved in the trial and it gave the prosecution every possible advantage against the correct import of Section 29 of the Anti-Drugs Section. Had delivered The law mandates that the court should be aware of the amount of sanctions, but to reach a valid conclusion, the quality of the evidence presented in the court and the mere evidence of the case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
