Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus THE STATE

Chars allegedly recovered under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) and 103 Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (Article 4 of 1979), Article 3/4 Control of the Ordinance of Narcotic Material Stances (XXVII of 1997), Section 9 A bail grant was imposed on the coach, which included the driver and conductor of the vehicle, but none of the passengers, the driver, or the conductor were testified about the alleged recovery of marijuana from the alleged police officer. Of course, such a good witness Not so much as anyone, but when an accused was charged with a crime in which he was sentenced to death, it was the police's responsibility During the investigation of the case, the public witnesses, despite the availability of public witnesses on the occasion, were ignored and were not called for recovery. As such, the accused was charged under the Enforcement of Head (1979) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Ordinance, 1997. The law, dealt with by almost the same article and implemented for the same purpose and purpose, both constitutions were running parallel to each other and both could not carry each other's proportional punishment in accordance with the other law, It was to be seen which law, if charged under two different cases, should be kept for the purpose of sanction of bail, even though different convictions, the minimum punishment given to the accused. , Under the circumstances us immigration advocates from Kazi Ahmed lawyer