Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAHID versus STATE

Sections 9 (c) of the Drug Abuse Act 1997 and 26 Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979) Article 3/4 Pressure on Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (X of 1975), Section 8 Evidence The prosecution did not make any evidence in support of its case and relied on Article 26, the Control Ordinance of Narcotic Substances, 1996, to prove that it was the duty of the accused to terminate the prosecution by the trial court. He did not present any evidence to convict him. The main duty of the accused allegedly recovered was to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and did not relieve the burden of prosecution under the statutory idea in Section 26, Control Ordinance of Drug Subjects, 1996. It is reported that evidence was once produced in support of the prosecution. In this case, it was then that the accused would be required to repeal Article 26 at the same time, the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act, 1996 did not abolish litigation. In his duty to prove his case beyond any doubt: The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court was set aside and the same case remanded for judgment. ? property advocate from Kot Ghulam Mohd lawyer