Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ versus THE STATE

The defendant accused of defining Section 9 evidence under the Drugs Act 1997 was that a large quantity of drug paraphernalia was recovered from the truck driven by it, but the accused could not be found in the truck and the accused Was registered based on a driver's license. Recovered from the truck No doubt a large quantity of drug paraphernalia was recovered from the truck but since no one was arrested while stopping the truck and the only evidence against the accused was his driving license from the truck. Recovery, it was revealed that the prosecution proved that the truck's original responsibility was entrusted to a competent officer, explaining the date of the assignment and that it should be proved not even in the date of the incident. Only the truck was, but physically, the accused was under prosecution testimony. In his cross-examination, he confessed that he did not know how long the suspect had been in the truck with official number 2, when the witness testified that the suspect had been handed over to the truck, the defense evidence was an appropriate prosecutor's bell. The suspects failed to link the truck to where the alleged drug was recovered, except for evidence that a driver's license was obtained in the name of the accused, sentenced and sentenced. The trial court set aside the defendants to extend the benefit of the doubt and the accused was acquitted immigration advocates email from Daska lawyer