Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD DAUD versus STATE

Articles 9 (c), 21, 22, 25 and 29 criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), definitions 103 and 537, the search and seizure of evidence established the fact of recovery beyond doubt, the arrest of the ineligible , The arresting and investigating police officer will foil all the trial and such irregularity can be fixed under Section 53737, CRPC and hence the accused will not face any prejudice. No drug was recovered from that person. In the case, the prosecution's witnesses had fully confirmed each other, in which case it was filed for malicious prosecution The official witnesses were good until the motive was established by the accused, but the accused was narcotic substance. The Act failed to establish section 25 of the same Act of 1997. Section 103 of the CRPC, related to search and seizure, was deleted. This did not prove that the prosecution had been tampered with and that, beyond every reasonable doubt, he had proved the guilt of the accused and successfully removed his burden through consistent and reliable evidence. The prosecution's witnesses are alleged to have made the allegations. Under Section 29 of the Anti-Drug Control Act, 1997, no attempt was made to dismiss the prosecution by excluding its burden, but to deny the allegations and to prove their plea without mere evidence. It was not enough to plead guilty. Misrepresentation or non-reading of evidence has shown that the trial court's verdict was a valid application of the law and appropriate evidence. lawer from fb area from Saidu Sharif lawyer