Find a Lawyer

TARIQ IRSHAD versus STATE

Notices were issued to the appellants under Section 31 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 by the Special Judge on obtaining information from the Anti-Inspector Assets, Anti-Narcotic Force, on the same day their appeals were received The notice was issued. Section 31, of the Anti-Drug Prevention Act 1977, contains information related to allegations that the appellant was found to be involved in drug trafficking during a period of investigation by the Anti-Narcotics Force. And he acquired the property through that income. The Special Judge did not apply, prosecute, or inform his information about the information, nor did he investigate whether the property held by these individuals was obtained through smuggling. , It was not listed for the reason given by the Special Judge. Referring to the material presented to him, the intention of the legislature to point out that he had to believe in the existence of the coffee was the basis of the legislature's intention to act against the aforementioned persons. The reasons for the property acquired through smuggling will be based on information, not just the information-based special judge mechanically issuing the notice as if he or she felt compelled to issue the notice itself. An application was submitted to him by an officer of the drug force, acting as a special judge. Himself isolated. The special judge of the jurisdiction and authority granted by him did not act in the manner provided for in the law property advocates from Hayatabad lawyer