Find a Lawyer

QASEEM versus STATE

The testimony of the testimony of Section 9 evidence led to significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence that the investigating officer stated that the raid on the hotel was carried out at 1 00/1 30 pm, while the minor witness had clearly stated that the incident took place in the morning. Alleged that four were recovered from a pocket, while the minor witness claimed that the accused had recovered from two pockets as only 4 grams of hashish was separated for chemical examination, if the minor witness's version was accepted. No further explanation was given then. Drugs were recovered from each pocket and at the point where 4 grams were set aside to dispatch the investigating officer of the Franz Science Laboratory, a cross-examination revealed that the parcel presented to the court containing the narcotics was sealed. Was not done, while the investigating officer in the FIR said that the drugs were sealed in a separate parcel of the parcel and went astray, in the case of the forensic science laboratory in the case of the incident on 23 February 2002. Immediately after being separated, the parcel was received, according to the aforementioned lab report, the laboratory said on 20 5 2002 There was no explanation for the delay in the prosecution's case. In the circumstances, reasonable suspicion was encountered, the benefit should be known to the accused and the accused was kept separate and released soon. list of supreme court advocates from Barbar Loi lawyer