Find a Lawyer

RAHIM DAD versus THE STATE

Control of the Narcotic Substance Act 1997 Section 9, 20 and 25 Criminal Code (v. 1898), the validity of section 103 evidence was that the provisions of Section 103, CRPC were seriously violated which led to Was dealt privately with non-cooperation. The persons who witnessed the recovery of the persons were withheld, first because the provisions of CRPC 103, under the provisions of Control Section 25 of the Drug Substances Act, 1997, were excluded and That the provisions of the control section 20 of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 were directory. In nature, non-compliance of section 103 cannot be considered a strong ground for prosecuting the accused in the eyes of the law; the main purpose and purpose of enforcing section 103 was to ensure the CRPC. That the search and recovery was done honestly and fairly. And in order to exclude any possibility of intercourse and misconduct in section 103, the PC never intended to deny the statements of official witnesses in any case. online advocate from Tando Adam lawyer