Find a Lawyer

SAJJAD AHMAD versus STATE

Sections 9 (c) and 29 of the evidence of the recovery of the narcotic evidence were taken by the accused for life, that he was falsely implicated by all the prosecution witnesses and that the affidavit was false. The question of a far-reaching possibility is that in a stupid attempt, the accused tried to make a case by saying that nothing was recovered. They were not aware of the truck they were driving or they did not know about the prohibited presence in the truck and they were accused, they did not choose to present a defense witness. Nor did he demand an oath in support of his convictions. It was proved that his criminal charge against the accused was beyond any doubt and the trial court truly agreed that the trial defendants were convicted and punished by the trial court's finding of any weakness. Were appeased and were not prepared for any interference.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013

• QAYYUM KHAN v. MUHAMMAD YAMIN 2013 CLC 1650
• KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA TEXT BOOK BOARD, PESHAWAR v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IR (E&C) 2013 PTD 1651
• ASAD ULLAH v. MOHIB ULLAH 2013 CLC 1655
• MEHMOOD KHAN v. GULZAD KHAN 2013 MLD 1666
• Mst. HUSSAN BIBI v. AKHLAQ HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI 2013 CLC 1676
• HAMIDULLAH v. Haji SHER AKBAR KHAN 2013 YLR 1676
• ABDUR RAHIM alias RAHIMAY v. State 2013 YLR 1683
• IBAD ULLAH v. Mst. ROIDA GUL BEGUM 2013 CLC 1687

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2013 →

law firms from Jehlum lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes