Find a Lawyer

TAJ WALI versus STATE

The testimony of Section 9 (c) and 21 of the testimonies and all the counsel's witnesses had modified their statements against the FIR and on the material aspects of the case it was registered under CCPC 5161. And there can be no contradictions. Lightly and firmly stated that advisers and witnesses would require acid-free coordination, more than 65 people were allegedly present in the room when the raiding party entered the room, and the physical content of the articles. Individual responsibility for occupation, the table in the room could not be fixed on a particular person. No one was arrested from those who fled the room, presence in the room would not be enough to contact the accused with physical possession of drug paraphernalia on the table, a positive evidence was presented that the room Or they were in constructive possession of it or they were holding or deleting the bundle, but no such evidence was revealed by the prosecution marijuana obtained by the chemical analyst, according to the prosecution. There were no charges with the number of slabs of chariots sent by the source. Did not indicate the number of slabs available in the packets. The circumstances arose about the marijuana samples sent to the chemical analyst prosecution, but the chemical analyst did not care to collect the specimen, and in the case, the case of credible evidence was withheld by the prosecution. The story complained badly to the police. Officers raided the Magistrate's Court despite considerable opportunity and time registration advocate from Mirpur (AJK) lawyer