Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TARIQ versus THE STATE

Investigating the definition of Section 9 (b) of the Under the Drugs Act 1997, the investigating officer admitted in his cross-examination that he prepared two parcels of opium when he arrived at the Complainant's / A Section 1 location. That he inspected. The said parcel was not sealed. The complainant stated that after finishing the complaint, he handed it over to a constable and sent it to the police station for filing an FIR. According to the FIR, the same was registered within 9:30 am 35 minutes after the FIR's parolee stated that the distance between the rehabilitation site and the police station was approximately 13 13 miles, which the investigating officer did on his inspection. I told the Chief that the complaint was handed over to him while he was on patrol duty and that he was approached by the prosecutor's witness at around 9pm. There was a call that was sent to the police, for Joyce's registration, to receive a complaint about the FIR and to say nothing about being taken to the police station. The prosecution witness testified at his meeting with the investigating officer. He did not say who completed the investigation into the prosecution's witnesses the night of the incident. Various and surprising responses to the light service came out. No private person was called to witness the recovery process even though the recovery site was near an official tube well. Police filed a complaint, FIR and recovery memo. And no action was taken. The FIR filed at the place of recovery was also vandalized, statements of the prosecution's witnesses material top advocate from Ziarat lawyer