Find a Lawyer

NAZAR HUSSAIN versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Sections 497, 103, 59, 154 and 156 (2) Control of Narcotic Substances (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (b), 21, 25, 761 29 and 51 Prohibition (Enforcement) Border) Order (4 of 1979), Arts 3 and 4 bail accused allegedly arrested by the police party while background of bitter or ill will not appear between tree accused and local police in possession of 200 grams of hashish. has been. Police officials were good and qualified witnesses like public witnesses after making false allegations in the recovery of prohibited drug paraphernalia unless there was animosity between them and Section 25 of the Criminal Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997 was established. ? In the cases listed under the aforesaid Act 3 103, the application of the CR PC was expressly excluded. For all practical purposes the investigation, retrieval, arrest and most of the other measures were taken on the spot in similar cases. Were. t He was a police officer and the investigation was practically good and his inquiry was substantially completed before returning to the police station and at the same time working as a police officer's raiding officer, complainant and investigative officer. Doing so, therefore, was neither illegal nor inaccurate nor natural, but was probably the only practical curriculum in the circumstances of this case, and its status in the police - in the search and arrest of the accused, was classified as such. The legality of the search and arrest was absolutely irrelevant. The CCPC, Arts 3 and 4 prohibition (Enforcement Head of Order) Order, 1979, and Section 9 (b) were not eligible for discrimination for the purposes of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and such The unrealistic distribution was not just solicitors from Abbottabad lawyer