Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJID versus THE STATE

Sections 9 (c), 25 and 29 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), the testimony of the section 103 evidence investigating officer and statements of other police officers were confirmed by the bus driver, where the marijuana was recovered, the bus driver, who completed As an independent and unincorporated person fully supported the prosecution, the driver was examined for a long time to corroborate his fact and the defendant could not reveal anything in his mouth. Could not say that he was lied to in this case. Under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Stances Act 1997, the trial court was empowered to recognize that the defendants in the case had illegal articles until the contrary was proved. The accused should be argued in relation to compliance. Section 103, CR PC, was overturned in view of the fact that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997 dismissed the application. Non-compliance of Section 103, CCP in cases under the Narcotic Material Stances Materials Act 1997 under Rule 133, CRPC, in the circumstances, was not a fatal decision of the trial court in relation to the accused's conviction, based on sound reasons. Was. After proper care of the entire record arrived, the penalty of Rs. 10, 00,000 on the accused could not be interfered with. However, it was reduced to Rs. property advocate from Rawat lawyer