Find a Lawyer

MARK MITSUD versus STATE

Section 156 (1) (8) of the Customs Act 1969 (V9 1898), Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), the accused convicted of drug trafficking was found guilty before the trial court and 75,000 under it. RI was sentenced to three years for a fine of Rs. Section 156 (1) (8) of the Customs Act, 1969, and in his appeal only sought to reduce his sentence, it is alleged that he was found guilty on his own plea of guilt and he He was not entitled to challenge his conviction and his appeal could not be sustained. The accused had confessed to the crime and there was no room for reduction in the punishment and for drug trafficking masses to engage the drug dealers and their associates at large and in such heinous acts. Was effective and had to deal with them. The handcuffer's foreign citizenship, and because of the crime he committed, did not legally accept any relaxation in the punishment for the heroin trafficking offense. He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment and the trial court had already softened his appeal and accordingly did not face any weakness in his decision. top advocates from Ahmadpur East lawyer