Sections 9 (c) and 29, such controversial and contradictory portions of the evidence for the possession of narcotic drugs and evidence, can be termed as most human error; the recovery of the prohibited payment cannot be doubted. With no defense and explanation against it, drug recovery was established by the accused, as required under Section 29 of the Control. In the Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, there was no enmity of the prosecution witnesses, who were police officers, they were never consulted with the accused, no explanation was forthcoming by the accused, he was present there with his accomplices. Had nothing to do with it, and in the absence of any such explanation and simple denial by the accused, would be sufficient to prove his guilt, under Section 9 (c) of the Drug Control Act 1997 ) Was less than the amount listed in the provision, the defendant, under the circumstances, became entitled to take advantage of the border line case, the accused was the first defendant There was rum that had no previous history. Allegations of involvement in such cases as she accuses of being a woman will be punishable by severe punishment, and her sentence will range from twenty-five years to ten years. Was limited to Rs 1,00,000 to Rs 50,000
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
