Find a Lawyer

NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN versus STATE

Section 9 (c) of the Controlling Drugs Act 1997, defining the evidence charged in this case was flawed, which was inconsistent with the prosecution's claim in connection with the recovery of opium and marijuana from the accused. The front was not even cast. The PC Trial Court, in its statement under Section 234 PC, charged the accused under the Narcotic Material Stances Ordinance 1995, which was not in process at the time, prosecuting the accused regarding drug recovery. was not. IR filed after spot investigation Prosecutor's evidence contradictory Was suspended because there was no reason for his resignation by the prosecution witnesses to the recovery and did not examine him during the investigation of the case was dishonest, suspects suspected of circumstances. The benefit was given and accordingly they were acquitted law firms from Arifwala lawyer