Find a Lawyer

SARTAJ versus THE STATE

Control of the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997 Section 9, 25 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), the validity of the Section 103 evidence was validly obtained by the chemical audiomer's confirmation, both of the prosecution's witnesses testified before the parcel that Sample was sent For testing, two seals were affixed, while the Chemical Examiner's report cited a seal that would not discriminate. First, because both the chief in his examination and the prosecution's witnesses in the cross examination had accepted the two seals, and so on the restoration memo. When there is evidence of evidence and documentary evidence that only two seals were fixed in the Chemical Examiner's report with the mention of one seal, it would not affect the prosecution's case. Secondly, when the parcel is prepared, it includes the number and date of the FIR and also includes the name of the police station and is also listed in the Chemical Examiner's report so that the property of one case can be transferred to another. Otherwise, the mention of the parcel will not affect and will not affect the testimony of the two witnesses of the prosecution of a seal of the Examiner of Chemical Examiner. It is alleged that it failed to prove that it had falsified the non-compliance of the section 103, CRPC, the non-participation of public witnesses. The need for public witness companionship by the Controlling Section 25 of the Drug Substances Act, 1997, meant the elimination of the possibility of lying and fraud, where there was no bad desire between the police and the accused, and when the amount recovered greatly. Big, so no one attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Larkana lawyer