Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD LATEEF versus THE STATE

Section 7 Control7 Control of the Narcotic Substances of the Steel Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 37 guaranteed to grant the accused's argument that although the counsel stated that 4 kg The marijuana accused was recovered from the suspect's possession, but, of the alleged recovery, only 200 grams of marijuana was taken as a sample and sealed separately for chemical inspection and testing. , And the rest of the material was sealed, which was not sent to the chemicals. The inspector, therefore, the criminal capacity of the accused was limited to only 200 grams of marijuana, which brought the offense under the control of Section 9 (b) of the Drug Under Improvement Act of 1997, which imposed a maximum of 7 years in prison and He did not commit the crime. Section 497 prohibited the CCPC's clause and therefore the accused was entitled to be released on bail. Except where the defendant did not challenge that the recovered substance was not a narcotic, so it would not be required. The Examiner was sent to inspect the property for the entire case. If the accused had challenged the recovery not to become intoxicating substance, then it would have been necessary for the prosecution to have the entire property of the case recovered for chemical examination. Because the appropriate drug was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, in some cases the property may have a high volume which can be very difficult, as well as lead to dispatch and transport. This report can also cause delays in coming. In the same way, the recovery of marijuana from the accused has been proved in the settlement of the cases and they have taken into account the nature and contents of the substance. best law firms from Padidan lawyer