Find a Lawyer

SAQLAIN HAIDER versus STATE

Applicants filed for its success under Section 23 (1) (a) (v) and 27 (4) of the Criminal Code (V 1898), section 265 K and 439 evidence, the sole PC The dismissed co-accused was given a notice on the applicant / suspect's absence in connection with the certified non-standard drug, along with a notice to which he submitted a response within the prescribed period. And it not only provided all the details related to the purchase of the drug, but also provided full details of the warranty, further confirmation of the applicant's response was provided by his warrant drug inspector. The answer was, in the circumstances, there was a mistake under the law of sending the applicant to the case; the Chairman Drug Court issued the proceedings against the applicant without having his independent judicial mind fixed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 265 K, refusal to grant relief to the applicant under CRPC was not valid on the basis that there was no co-accused status as the warrant was not present. The refusal to grant the required relief was to be processed by the law enforcement agency absent the accused and his failure would not deprive the applicant of the case as a defendant, under section 265K For resolution, the PC Petitioner not only explained his innocence by presenting the required documents, but also furnished the warranty details, no possibility of petitioner's conviction, the trial court proceedings proved useless. , The prosecution could not prove the culprits, was punished under Section 27 of the Drugs Act 1974, setting aside inappropriate orders While having any real, pakistani advocates Dargai lawyer