Find a Lawyer

ASHIQUE HUSSAIN LEGHARI versus THE STATE

The definition of Section 9 (b) FIR's control of the Drugs Act 1997 indicates that the complainant, the Department Excise Officer, was notified of his spying with his subordinate staff under Daily Entry No. 1 I left the office and headed home. The accused entry journal, which was not submitted before the trial court, was cut off the root of the prosecution case due to non-submission of such document, out of 5 435 grams of drugs allegedly recovered from the accused, 225 grams The same was sent separately by the complainant to the expert for analysis, but no details were given about the remaining quantities and what happened was not clear from the record, for the benefit of the suspect, in the circumstances, The pass complainant acknowledged that the FIR was written by the Excise Inspector on his instruction and the statements under Section 161, the PCP, were the same. Wrote, but the prosecution failed to inspect the aforesaid person, and no Mason was assigned by the prosecution because he was discharged because of his failure to prove the case against the accused. The accused was sentenced and sentenced after the verdict. One side and the accused were ordered to be released soon criminal advocate from Panjan Kisan lawyer