Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL, SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE, DISTRICT KEHARI MITROO

Section 561A & 156 (2) of the Criminal Code (CRPC) Control of Narcotic Substances (XXV of 1997), Sections 20, 21, 34, 35 and 47 of the FIRF cushioning, IR Inspector police demanded record against the accused. It should be revoked on the basis that in accordance with Notification Section R03318 (1) / 95, the Sub Inspector Police is liable for raiding, arresting and taking action against accused section 21 (2) of the Narcotic Substances Control Act, 1997 There was no option to start. , Although it is submitted that the Sub-Inspector should be notified by notification for initiating proceedings under the aforesaid Act and notification section RA 3318 (1) / 95, it was also disclosed that the Federal Government had provided Not below the rank of officer inspector, this officer was authorized to initiate the Narcotic Force, but the provisions governing the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997 did not conclude where individuals were legally allowed under this Act. The option was not given, it will fail. d In the absence of conviction, the provisions of 5 21 (2) of the Drug Substances Control Act 1979 cannot be considered in the High Court, for the nature of the directory, F, I, R refused to be canceled. went when you need a advocate from Dhirkot lawyer