Find a Lawyer

NAZEEM KHAN versus THE STATE

Section 9 (c) testimony was related to the testimony of both prosecutors from the premises from which the prohibition was recovered and both were constant that at the time of recovery the accused was present at the place of recovery of the accused and the accused did not deny his arrest. I didn't even refuse. US dollar, and Pakistani currency recovery, but he simply denied the location of the crime when he was charged. The accused never challenged his listed address, even the site plan The house was located at the location indicated. There was no evidence to show that the accused was recorded that the house was inhabited by others. It was not possible to falsely accuse the accused because he had a large quantity of drugs seized, in some cases it may be possible to mobilize the police to include some innocent persons. , But such a purpose could have been easily achieved by applying a few grams of heroin, but it did not amount to 35 kilograms of heroin. In this case, the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence that cross-examination was very long. The inquest remained inconsistent and because the accused was arrested on the spot, a case was proved against him and the trial court pronounced the sentence against the accused and his appeal against the conviction was upheld. Rejected was convicted of not being illegal, in the absence of a good cause, could not be increased us immigration advocates from Tarnol lawyer