Find a Lawyer

GHULAM KHAN versus STATE

Section 9 conviction for testimony, lack of drug substance was immediately recovered from the possession of suspects and respected persons in the area pointed to police that the accused's witness had told them to receive the information. At the time, the suspect was present at a speed of 5/10 from the Police Party Investigation Officer, however, he explained that he had to go around the village to make the charge, otherwise the question of distance was very relevant. Was not compatible with the minor witness's testimony and the investigating officer. The forensic science laboratory confirmed the facts in the FIR that the sample sent to the laboratory contained a significant contradiction of marijuana, however, was found between the statements of two witnesses in which the narcotics were recovered, and not to the witnesses. Neither has been known nor their weight prosecution. Samples were taken from each slab Only one slab was taken from the weight of which the accused was not aware of the culprit, in the circumstances used during laboratory examination. The sample made could only be retained, which weighed 4 grams. Recalculate be. Under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Materials Act 1997, the offense convicted was changed to Section 9 (a) of the said Act and accordingly the sentence was already imprisoned under the accused and the fine. The sentence was set aside. famous supreme court advocate from Dera Ismail Khan lawyer