Find a Lawyer

SYED WALI versus STATE

The testimonies of Sections 9 (c) and 25 of the testimony were fully supported by the prosecution's witnesses, and they remained consistent, consistent and credible and had long suffered from cross-examination. Evidence from witnesses has proven that the alleged quantity of marijuana was recovered from the accused's possession. The controversial statements of the prosecution's witnesses on the occasion of the date, time and place of the affidavit were sufficient to link the accused to the commission of the crime. The defense was unable to break the testimony of the witnesses or to indicate any illicit desire. Accordingly, witnesses against the accused also said that the witnesses belonged to the police department, which itself could not be considered a good place to dismiss their statements. The police officers were good witnesses like any other witness, even to the violation of section 103, the CRPC was concerned, in section 25 of the Drug Controlled Substances Act, 1997, excluding the application of criminal procedure. Was given, in support of the 1898 notary NG's affidavit that was falsely implicated in the lawsuit, it was brought on record by the accused to ensure that it was indeed a chemical. Samples were sent late in the laboratory for examination, to no avail, and they did not destroy the prosecution case in any way. Transfer of four gram samples extracted from the drug to the Chemical Examiner's Office from the suspects proved beyond doubt, too, that the accused had marijuana or narcotics in front of a Chemical or High Court report. Challenge the recovery of substances by not having them registration advocate from Zhob lawyer