Find a Lawyer

JAN GUL versus THE STATE

Definition of Articles 9 (c) and 25 of the evidence was proved by the prosecution through the preparation of oral and documentary evidence, but no material contradiction was found in the version of the prosecution given in the FIR or the prosecution. The prosecution's testimony presented by the witnesses was examined, but nothing was recovered that could have led to their statements. Defendant's testimony presented by the defendant did not provide an affirmative statement of confidence that could expose and diminish the effect of the evidence presented on the record. The preparation of the challan by the police was not delayed. The original submission of the challan in the court did not show that there was any prejudice to the accused who had the effect of recovering the violation of section 103, CRPC, as the provisions of section 25 contained intoxicants. Was recovered. Application of Section 103 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, which was specifically excluded, the CCP found evidence of recovery in relation to the quantity of intoxicants and sent for chemical analysis, on a permanent basis. The prosecution's witnesses established that the chemical analyst's report in relation to the substance was positive, the accused could not demonstrate prejudice, it was simply due to the fact that the sub-inspector of police who filed the complaint also The investigating officer of this case was, the trial court could not interfere with the decision of the trial court. inheritance advocates near Kamalia lawyer