Find a Lawyer

MALIK MUSHTAQ ALIAS BLACK PRINCE versus STATE

Sections 337, 338, 265 C&439 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (C), 15 and 47 were presented to the trial court for clearance of the invoice and one of the accused 337, approved under Cr. The PC was granted amnesty and the applicant challenged the apology on various grounds in his application, which was dismissed, the petitioner filed a review against the rejection of his application in which it was alleged. Approving the apology was illegal, outlawed and without legal authority. There was no provision in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to grant any waiver to any accused, misunderstanding, because the applicant failed to identify any clause under which section 337, CRP. C was banned under the provisions of C, under which the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 was banned. In section 7337, CCPC, at the trial, the court had the discretion to apologize to anyone who directly or indirectly agrees that any such offense was erroneous in view of the evidence obtained. The claim may be private and cannot be claimed by any of the accused if the sanctioned / co-accused is granted by a competent authority, then the applicant or other co-accused cannot be challenged. And they will have to examine it freely as the approvals have also received copies of the required documents under Section 265 CCPC along with the other co-accused, without any illegal, malicious and defective jurisdiction. presence law firms from Jhand lawyer