Find a Lawyer

SHERZADA KHAN versus STATE

Sections 34, 35 and 36 Section R 596 (I) / 97 Dated 7 8 1997 Recovery of a large quantity of heroin from the possession of the report of the accused chemical inspector, Scope of section 34, Control of the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 It is directed that no Institute or Narcotic Testing Laboratory be reported by the Federal Government to be a Federal Narcotic Testing Laboratory and does not speak of setting up a separate / independent laboratory for this purpose, Chief Chemical Examiner, The Government has been notified to Punjab, Lahore, performing the Narcotic Substance Act, 199, under the Chemical Test Section 34. In the present case, the report of the 7 chemical testers was signed by the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Biochemist / Chemist and Chief Chemical Examiner and the protocol tests were performed as a result of the biochemist. In which the report was reversed, the enforcement of the law as a rule and the performance of the procedure referred to the actions taken by the state workers for their duties, thus suggesting that the analysis of section 35/36 of the Act The car / chemical tester was not complied when no evidence was specifically brought to the accused. On file, it was alleged that the chemical examiner did not meet the conditions stated, that he could seek a chemical executor in his own defense, or that he could have sought the argument as a court witness. It may go to the trial court to ask for evidence. For the first time, the prosecution also failed to investigate the prosecution's testimony, which transferred the sample parcels to the Office of the Chemical Examiner jobs for fresh advocates from Tarnol lawyer