Find a Lawyer

SYED KARIM versus ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE

The definition of evidence in section 9 (c) was so closely linked to the evidence against the accused and the accompanying accused that if one part of the evidence against one of the accused was disbelieved then the rest of it was negatively affected. It cannot be believed that the accused has been arranged. There is no case with the co-accused who was acquitted of receiving heroin when the aforementioned co-accused was not available in the city, so the accused was accused of being in possession of heroin. The prosecutor, who was with the complaining party to supply her with the Captain of the Bad Army co-accused, was overseeing the heroin recovery process, according to the prosecution. The investigation was not conducted and the law would assume that the above witness was examined, that he would be involved in the prosecution's case. There is no evidence to support it and not reject the trial, it was to be the final effect. In these circumstances, the accused had the right to testify before the High Court at the same time that the entire property of the case should be referred to the Chemical Examiner for reporting whether it was an intoxicant or not. The trial court unlawfully terminated the case property without issuing any such notice to the accused and without claiming the opportunity for a case to be heard, which was before the trial court or before the appellate court. Someone was missing the request and thus suspected the positive report of the Chemical Examiner's writings and deductions. I was free, and yet, us immigration advocates from Kot Mithan lawyer