Find a Lawyer

SYED MUHAMMAD versus STATE

The fact that the section 9 (c) criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), the definition of evidence 465 was not moved at the trial or after the trial, nor at the end of the evidence of the prosecution in this regard was the fact that the accused At the time of the imprisonment, the accused did not plead guilty and pleaded that he could not drive the car, he showed that he fully understood the charge and was capable of defending the accused, therefore, There was no illness that he was unable to defend and his application, under section 465, to the CRPC for trial court prosecution. Their testimony was properly denied. Prosecutor's version clearly stated that 15kg of hashish was recovered from the vehicle, driven by the accused, recovery by Defense D was not seriously disputed The fence pleaded that the accused could not drive. And she is crazy, cannot be guaranteed, and there were false defense witnesses who could not explain their presence satisfactorily on occasion and could not be relied upon in any way. The statements and convictions of the accused were retained in the circumstances patent advocate from Sihala lawyer