Find a Lawyer

EHSANU LLAH versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), the evidence of the prosecution was natural and in its place huge quantities of 19kg of opium were recovered from the accused's house, which could not be applied under normal circumstances. The nature of the enmity was not disclosed and there is no evidence that the accused has been falsely implicated; the recovery of opium itself in such large quantities is due to the failure to inspect his position under Section 340 (2), CRPC. It was enough to base the sentence. This shows that the accused did not have to say anything in his defense, the case was not misrepresentation, unread or misrepresentation of the evidence, demanding any interference in the conclusions reached by the two courts below. Which was banned for 49 days. No plausible explanation was offered but the appeal was dismissed from the accused on the grounds of limitations in addition to the competence. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Panjan Kisan lawyer