Find a Lawyer

AHMAD GUL versus STATE

Section 9 (c) and 29 narcotics recovery evidence was picked up by the suspect as he was riding the truck on the way, and he was not aware of the presence of the narcotics in the secret parts of the truck. The presence of a truck was not proven by the prosecution or by a documented prosecution by any strong evidence about the suspect. The mere presence of the co-accused and the accused in the vehicle was not enough to convince him that the recovering drug in large quantities was the prosecutor's contact with his co-accused or evidence of any nexus or concealed drugs. I failed to prove the defendant's guilt by proving his conscious information. Aspect of the case escaped the notice of the trial court and thus, the findings of the trial court regarding the conviction and conviction of the accused were wrongly concluded and the accused was acquitted. Was

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• NISAR AHMAD v. State 2015 PCrLJ 478
• SHAH MIRAN v. M. TAUFIQ KHAN 2015 MLD 480
• HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, ISLAMIA COLLEGE, PESHAWAR 2015 CLC 500
• ABDUL GHAFAR v. State 2015 PCrLJ 502
• AMAN UL HAQ v. State 2015 MLD 518
• ABDUL QAYUM v. State 2015 PCrLJ 528
• Mst. SAMINA BIBI v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2015 YLR 539
• SAHIBZADA v. State 2015 PCrLJ 554

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

lawer from fb area from Dera Murad Jamali lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes