Find a Lawyer

IKRAM HUSSAIN versus STATE

Section 9 (c) and 29 (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) re-examination of evidence Failure to exclude the burden of proof of recovery against the accused, employed in the recovery of one kilogram and 40 grams of culprit. Was. After that, the trial court had sentenced the accused to the post, but the trial court had sentenced him to fourteen years in prison, and he was picked up by the High Court, who had recovered the drugs from the man. In order to escape and prepare a report on the legal status of Zucro theft under Section 29 (d) of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act 1997, it would be that the person who was found in drug possession committed a crime. Unless it is proved that the accused has failed to exclude the crime. To show the burden that he was not in drug possession, he relied directly on the report prepared by him to allege that he was found guilty of the commission rightly. With regard to the offense and judgment it is considered that the leave to appeal by the Supreme Court was not denied. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Kotli lawyer