Find a Lawyer

GHULAM FAROOQ versus STATE

Sections 234, 235 and 239 of the Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Section 9 (c) joint recovery of marijuana and opium were not affected by the personal possession of the individual accused, nor was the prosecution of section 34, PPC. Was applied or not charged. No evidence has come on the record which indicates that the two accused had joint intentions, nor was there any connection between the proceedings and transactions of the two accused, nor any evidence related to the joint possession. Neither the drug or the joint possession charge was charged with intent, during their investigation under Section 2342, the PCP convicted the two accused under the control section 9 (c) of the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 After leaving, it cannot be said in these circumstances that the crimes were as cohesive as they were formed. During the same and the same transaction or was committed different types of drugs were recovered from the accused who could not propose joint possession and joint intent. They were tried separately and their joint trial was uncontrollable. And the sentence was set aside and the remand for the trial was obtained. inheritance advocates near Shangla lawyer