Find a Lawyer

RAHIM BUX versus STATE

Control of Drugs Act 1997 Section 9 (c) Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Sections 156, 166 and 364 State CIA personnel arrested the accused by CIA personnel, developed counsel The arrest and recovery of the drugs and subsequent, the suspects were handed over to the relevant police station, which was available on record, does not indicate that CIA personnel were required to take notice of the matter and to look into the matters required under Section 156. A charge was made by the Artillery Authority to investigate. In the CCPC case, an invalid and unauthorized person was taken by the station diary, which the prosecutor relied upon, the prosecution did not present it to the trial court because the prosecution's case depended on the preparation of that diary. , Its unpredictability benefited the trial, which would reach the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, which was not discussed by the trial court. The accused's statement was not signed by the accused under Section 2 342, CRPC, nor was the document prescribed in the presiding officer's written document which 364, CRPC's sentence and declaration of mandatory provisions. There was a violation. The trial court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt and set him free and ordered him to be released. famous supreme court advocate from Kakul lawyer