Find a Lawyer

ZAR GUL versus THE STATE

Sections 9, 20, 21 and 25 were charged with searching for more than 2kg of hashish, claiming the public had ample opportunity to obtain and cite two witnesses. However, no attempt was made by the raiding officer under the provisions in this regard. Although sections 21 and 25 of the Drug Abuse Act 1997, the universal principle of law was exempted by the police officer on the question of the search of any building, enclosure, etc., but the legislature, in its wisdom, called gravity And keeping in view the curse and evil. The effects of the tremendous rise in drug trafficking and sales created exceptions that were legitimate. But the court's insistence was that providing credibility to the search and recovery by a police officer was not necessarily a formal gathering of two respected persons from the area, Sub Inspector under Section 21 of Narcotic Substance Control. The police officer in the post was given extraordinary powers. The Act, 1997 was not disqualified precisely because it was mandatory for such officer to obtain the required search warrant under section 20 of the said Act, either the drugs could be concealed or destroyed. Was or can be proved. As a result of the disappearance or the adoption of such a procedure, the criminal lawmaker had not given any police officer free license / authority to search private buildings like residential premises, which the police officer wished. Had operations. Exceptions were certainly controlled by the check and balance system inheritance advocates near Murree lawyer