Find a Lawyer

AZIZUL HAQ versus THE STATE

Controlling Section 9 (c) Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order (4 of 1979) under the Drugs Act 1997, Definition of Arts 3/4 Evidence was not supported by the prosecutor's case and was declared contradictory. And it did not yield any results. A cross-7 inspection of such witness, the second adviser who was an excise constable and the complainant subordinate, admitted that he had first seen Charis at the Excise Police Station while at the scene of the incident he had only bag. Was seen when cross-examination said there was no witness. Syed Zamir was called back and re-examined; four months later when his property was officially shown in court, Syed Zamir was made to act as an adviser in a number of cases, such as, A subordinate who had to face proof. Such errors and commissions cannot be relied upon by the two excise inspectors who signed the testimony of Chars' recovery and arrest counsel. The accused has not been examined since the incident, especially considering the evidence of conscience that the inspector's inspection would adversely affect the prosecution's case and it could easily be pointed out that if he Even when inspected, they do not support them. The prosecution did not cross-examine the evidence of the prosecution and was appropriate for the reliance on which the trial court had punished the accused and acquitted him. solicitors from Khangah Sharif lawyer