MUHAMMAD AYUB versus STATE
Section 27 (1) (a) of the Drugs Act 1976 was defined as evidence. One is that the drug that was recovered by the drug inspector was not registered, and the other was that the prosecution did not present the relevant authority to the federal government, with which the drug samples seized from the store were taken. There was also evidence of non-registration. The accused was also not sent to the public analyst for analysis nor was any public analyst examined in court = four years after the sample was recovered, was sent to the Quality Control Board for analysis. No credibility could be attached to the report, which was not even proven to speed up the drug;
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
famous lower court advocate from Khair Pur lawyer
