Find a Lawyer

NASRULLAH versus THE STATE

Articles 9, 29 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CCPC) are defined under the Nar Anti-Drug Control Act, 1997 after being covered under the Assessment \ Opium Baked \ Controlled Substances. The established special court understood this. The accused himself did not disagree with the recovery of illicit articles; the prosecutor was not obliged to prove that opium was present in each bag and could be construed in accordance with section 29 of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act 1997. Unless and until the contrary is proved, the accused has committed the offense under the said Act, and the contents of the bags recovered from the accused have not been inspected, which sent a sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Was, therefore, not fatal to the prosecution and, in the case of a mild punishment, the officer raiding the accused in the subordinate's rank Beyond, was eligible under Section 21 (1) of the Narcotic Sub-Control. The Tennis Act, 1997 did not result in sending the recovered material to the chemical analyst for the defendant's home raid because the accused did not dispute the chemical analyst's report, the prosecution's case failed for any technical reason. Cannot allow. Crimes related to drug or trafficking and conviction were upheld law firms from Utror lawyer