Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ versus THE STATE

Controlling the intoxicants Act 1997 7 Section 7/9 Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979), the definition of Arts 3/4 evidence was not a concern for the defendant's case from the very beginning. Neither the owner nor he was aware of where the alleged drug was recovered, nor was there any knowledge of the existence of such a ban in the aforementioned vehicle. The vehicles were owned by the co-accused and driven by him at the relevant time. And the alleged incident happened while the accused was traveling with a colleague. In the case involved, the accused accused of being acquitted as a resident of the same Colony Factum of innocence and ignorance was proven from the beginning when its statement under Section 161, CRPC. Was recorded as well as his statement was recorded. As its own witness under section 404040 (?), the CCPC, in which the co-accused had apologized for the accused's involvement in the commission of the crime, no legal evidence was taken from the commission of the crime. To add, the record cannot be made the basis for the conviction of the accused in the presence of the accused on the record with the participant in the vehicle as a passenger without any knowledge that the accused is in the vehicle. Contrary to the utmost suspicion of the accused, the trial court erred in the law in not giving the accused the benefit of such doubt, because in order to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, it was not necessary if many circumstances arose. Should be suspected. With reasonable doubt in the mind of the offender about the crime, the accused shall be entitled to take doubt as to the matter of any kind of grace and privilege, but the true prosecutor shall not pakistani advocates Jehanian lawyer