Find a Lawyer

SAEED RASUL versus THE STATE

Sections 497, 103 and 156 (2) Prohibited (Enforcement Head of Order) (4 of 1979), Arts 3/4 Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (b) and 21 bail, offense against the accused The approval was defined in two different constitutions under the Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1999. The final law was the Control of Drug Subjects, 1999, which sentenced him to seven years in prison. In the case of non-compliance with Article 497, the CCPC's bail was a rule and its refusal was exempt, but that would not mean that the offense was guaranteed, but the discretion would still remain in court Have to look. The court may deny the facts and circumstances of each case in extraordinary circumstances. The accused was involved in a crime which was against the society and since there was a large quantity of hashish recovered from the accused, his case was settled within it. Exception and he was not entitled to any arbitrary relief The court held that the breach of section 103, CRPC, had an effect on recovery, provided it in section 21 of the Narcotic Substances Control Act 1999 It was held that after a section I was not eligible to investigate the case, the entire proceeding of the case was illegal, it was withdrawn because the police officer's inability to investigate the case, section 156 (2), Cr. It was not enough to dismiss the proceedings as being under consideration by the PC. online advocate from Village Sunder lawyer