Find a Lawyer

MAQSOOD AKBAR versus STATE

Claims 9 (c) and 25 of the evidence were supported by both the complainant and the prosecution witnesses who had recovered 1900 grams of opium from the accused's possession at a specified date, time and place, both said that the witnesses had completed material points. Had shown a consensus and the accused had failed to identify any contradiction in their statements The contradictions raised by the accused were so slight that on their basis, it could not be said that the trial was upsetting. And the prosecution's testimony is influenced by the fact that although there were anti-narcotic force officers, they had no reason or The impetus for making false allegations and they could not be called interesting witnesses was because the witness had no hatred, the accused was charged, the prosecution's witnesses testified fully to each other as long as the official witnesses were good enough. The intention of mixing information is not established. The accused and any such intention was established in section 25 in the present case in connection with the non-use of drugs under section 25 of the Act 1997, the application of section 103, relating to the finding and seizure of the CRPC Was. The mere delay in sending samples to the laboratory for experimentation was not significant because there was no evidence that the property produced was tampered with and no serious defects were identified. In addition to some minor flaws in the investigation, evidence of the fact that the investigation did not affect the authenticity of the case was supported by the chemical examiner's report and was influenced by the belief that the defendant's defense counsel, Solid. immigration advocate from Renala Khurd lawyer