Find a Lawyer

NIAZ MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Section 9 (b) and 25 Drug Rules (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr 4 and 5 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 103 provide for the apprehension of evidence and arrest of witnesses in the search operation Submitted by the prosecution to prove. The accused's recovery and recovery was fully supported by the prosecution's story and remained consistent and consistent and had long contested the cross-examination, the defense said, or could not break the testimony of witnesses. Could not identify any illicit desire against which the witnesses had said. The accused is my fact that it has been stated that the witnesses belong to the police department, by itself, cannot be considered as a valid basis for excluding their testimony regarding non-compliance with the provisions of section 103, CRP. C was also misconstrued, as it is also under Section 25 of the Control of Drug Subjects. , 1997, specifically terminated the application of 10 103, the CPP raid resulted in a tip when it was not possible for police officers to be on patrol, as usual. That they complete the formal time-consuming process at the expense of the disappearance of the accused, such an error by the Investigation Officer was not fatal to the prosecution and would make it unsuccessful. The analyst's trial report was found to be positive, which also supported the prosecutor's story, as well as drug recovery in the case, which delayed sending expert articles to relevant constituents for expert opinion. The life could not be treated in which he was molested. Manipulate top civil advocates from Kasur lawyer