Find a Lawyer

ABDUL BARI versus ABDUL NAEEM

Appreciating the provisions of Sections 27 (i) and 23 (i) (c) of the Drugs Act, 1940, the duty of the complainant to bring the accused to the house to prove that he or she is in the business Was involved. Medical Store owned or owned by him or had any interest in the said business or was found selling a drug or in any way associated with the sale of the drug store where he was present. , But no evidence was presented at the trial to support the allegation of drug sale or involvement of the accused in the said business so as to attract the penal provisions of section 27 of the Drugs Act 1976. The alleged violation of the provisions of Clause 23 (i) (c) of the said Act had materialized in its evidence to prove the accused so that in any absence the accused may be present at the Medical Store at the relevant time. The other suppo was not sufficient to prove the allegation that he was involved in the illicit business of the medical store without having been acquitted on a drug trafficking license. how to become a advocate from Multan lawyer