LIAQAT ALI versus THE STATE
He was prosecuted for defining Article 9B & 19 of the Drug Controls Act 1997, alleging that he had ample evidence of heroin prosecution testimony that was examined at length, but They were not advised to have any motive or false involvement. No one was brought on record to suggest that the prosecution's witnesses against the accused were illogical to the accused's case, which was investigated by the police officer no less than the rank of police sub-inspector, though assistant sub-inspector police An investigation was made, but the suspect could not identify. Due to any prejudice to him, it was said that the investigation had been charged that he would be satisfied if he was convicted by the trial court through trial.
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
property advocates from Hattian lawyer
