THE STATE THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ASSETS) REGIONAL DIRECTORATE, ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE, LAHORE versus SHARAF-UD-DIN SHEIKH
Sections 9, 13 and 15 of the Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979), Arts 3 and 4 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A), drug trafficking and drug trafficking and drug offenses. The appellant's owner was not on record to prove that the place of recovery was owned by the accused. The alleged owner stated that the place was not presented as a prosecution witness under which the trial court's statement I was described under section 16464 of the co-accused, CRPC was recorded in the absence of the accused was never accused Section 1, accused, co-accused under CRPC Provide an opportunity to examine the statements made, the accused could not be used as a piece of evidence against the prosecution, was not able to offer the Nexus suspect on the recovery of any credible. Acular Documentary Account No Prohibition was recovered from the physical possession of the accused The prosecution had no material material to associate with the accused against the accused. The crime case was of no evidence to the extent of the accused; In this case the accused's innocence was doubled, if there was no misrepresentation or reading of evidence against the bad, it would appear that the crime had been misrepresented. Justice Law Officer was not successful in preparing a good ground for interfering with the trial court's good rationale for the trial court's acquittal of the trial court, neither reading nor misleading the evidence. Was based on The trial court found that any defect, material misconduct or legal malpractice case
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
