Find a Lawyer

SARTAJ ALI versus STATE

The testimonies of Articles 9 and 25, both the prosecution's witnesses, were unanimously agreed that the alleged quantity of marijuana was recovered at the date and time stated by the accused, citing all important details of the case. The witness statements provided a complete consensus. No material differences were found in the prosecution's story; the contradictions identified by the defendants were so minor that, on the basis of them, it could not be said that the trial had deteriorated and upon the recovery of large quantities of marijuana, It cannot be doubted. On the basis of which such minor contradiction, if any, was bound to take place from time to time, the trial court's reasonable reasoning decision, which was otherwise endorsed with the evidence on file, would be subject to minor contradictions. Could not be set aside, Section 103 application, CRPC was dismissed. Under Section 25 of the Control of Drug Substances Act, 1997, which exerted excessive influence, public servants / police witnesses were credible, as did rival witnesses until they could prove they were hostile to the accused. In this case, taking a small amount of a block containing a block for chemical testing was sufficient to prove that the fully recovered material was prohibited and there was no evidence of a retrieval supported by the chemical tester report. An impressive report of skepticism and confidence of the analyst was found to be positive, which supported the prosecutor's story as well as the recovery of the drug when the defendant's plea about his false implications, which was unfounded, Was a theory and was told family advocate from Bannu lawyer