KHAWAJ MUHAMMAD versus THE STATE
Control of Drugs Act 1997 Section 9 (c) Proof of Definition Case Property ie opium recovered from the accused was not presented to the trial court Burden was in the trial that the property of the case which was not excluded Was. By the testimony of two prosecution witnesses about the incident, in which the property of the case was allegedly destroyed, was not kept on record, no evidence was shown by the prosecution to show that Because the property of this case was destroyed in the fire, since the recovery of opium itself. Established crime under law, his non-production in court was fatal to the prosecution case Chemical Examiner's report was not enough to establish a prosecution case The accused had already spent more than three and a half years in prison. Was acquitted.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
female advocates from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer
