Find a Lawyer

JALAT KHAN versus STATE

Arrested 3/4 of the Narcotic Substances Steal Act (XXX of 1997), Sections 9 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), 5 103 accused presented to two police officers to prove the facts of the arrest and the arrest of marijuana. Who had fully agreed on all important aspects of the case. The accused could not identify any contradictions in his statements so that the prosecution could establish instability and the evidence of the prosecution was very convincing and there was no enmity with the witnesses. Or any material contradictions and weaknesses found in the prosecution's testimony merely for the purpose of arguing or falsely implicating the accused in this case. Prosecutors 'testimony was consistent with Charis' presence, location of the incident and the location of the recovery and the manner in which it took effect. Both witnesses were confronted by lengthy and searchers, but nothing was obtained by the defense to refute their statements, even though the delay in the delivery of the sample did not appear to have led to the accusation. That the provisions of Case Section 103, CR PC were not complied with because no two respected persons of the location were associated with it, as it contained provisions of 5103. The CRPC was excluded under the provisions of section 25 of the Code of Conduct Act 1997 and the reasons presented by the trial court properly reviewed the evidence that was in accordance with the prescribed principles of criminal jurisprudence and in any way In the presence of illegal interference or instability. There was no justification for the trial court to exclude the same sentence and the sentence filed by the trial court against the accused. famous high court advocate from Karak lawyer