Find a Lawyer

AKHTAR HUSSAIN versus THE STATE

Prohibited (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 Arts 3/4 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), the alleged liquor was recovered from the defendant at a place defined by section 103 evidence, which was a densely populated area that was the responsibility of the investigating officer. He should try it. Securing freelancers to work as an advisor around crime, but he did not do so, so the Investigation Officer was unable to call some freelancers to act as advisers, The police could mention the fact in the diaries that he failed to investigate. The officer did not, in the circumstances, sincerely try to obtain the presence of independent advisers as considered under section 103, CCP. Three bottles of C-alcohol were recovered from the suspect's possession, but only half of them were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. What the export bottles were made by a manufacturing company or the sealing party was bound by the raiding party by taking samples from each bottle to prove that all of these bottles contained alcohol. There was no evidence that the accused was carrying alcohol for sale and no evidence was presented that the accused was present on the spot for the purpose of selling alcohol. The alleged alcoholic was sent to the Chemical Examiner after a delay of 16 days and no explanation was given for the delay, a member of the complaining party who was a witness to the prosecutor testified to the tribal dispute. Was. The decisions of the following two courts were set aside and the accused was given freedom when you need a advocate from Zhob lawyer