Find a Lawyer

MST. BAKHTA versus STATE

Sections 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), Section 103 Evidence Definition History, both at the time and place, showed full consensus and the defendants in their statements indicated any contradiction. Were unsuccessful, the contradictions cited by the accused were so minor that they could not be prosecuted because the prosecution's witnesses were controversial, even though they were anti-narcotic force officials, who had no reason to falsely accuse the accused. Or was not motivated especially when the accused did not insist on any hostility or enmity, he said that the police officer R's testimony, however, cannot be dismissed simply because he belonged to the police department, the policeman was as good a witness as anyone else, until the record was brought to defame his testimony. Unless the application for Section 103 of the Controlling Section 25 of the Drug Substances Act 1997 was dismissed, the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 was enacted under the CRPC. It is objected that Section 103, CRPC, does not need to act for any offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, even when in a public vehicle, Received from passengers occupied, it was difficult to convince any witness to volunteer. Recovery witnesses have been accused of failing to identify a serious defect in the investigation, except that some minor malfunctions that did not affect the authenticity of the trial received an analyst's report. Who supported the prosecutor's story divorce advocates from Sarai Alamgir lawyer