Find a Lawyer

MAZHAR SHAH versus STATE

Clause 9 (c), 14, 15, 25 and 48 define the evidence. Seven of the prosecution's witnesses supported the recovery of 67kg of marijuana and 2kg of opium, which was confirmed by the prosecution's contradictory statements on the oath. The defense could not prove why the police should be falsely accused, especially when the members of the raiding party had no enmity against them, despite the confession of ownership by the co-accused, the accused persons. The evidence of knowledge and involvement in the export of narcotics was evidence that the recovery of the chit from the possession of the driving suspect, which contained the address of the accompanying accused, was to be concealed, Who also deliberately linked the accused. The contradictions identified by the defendants in the Drug Transfer Act were so trivial that the trial could not be ruled out, nor could the recovery of large quantities of marijuana and opium, on it. Minor discrepancies may be suspected, if any, from time to time, the application of section 103 was dismissed under control 25 of the CRPC. The Drug Addiction Act, 1997, which had a far-reaching impact, even as otherwise private individuals generally refrained from being witnesses because the people involved in such activities belonged to gangs who had their own terror. The man in the street also refrained from giving evidence after a lengthy trial. The prosecution, under these circumstances, had no legal obligation to present a private person in the investigation and to include any witnesses in support of the case in which jobs for fresh advocates from Khangah Sharif lawyer