Find a Lawyer

FIDA MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Definitions of Articles 9 (c), 20, 21 and 22 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), Sections 516A and 537 of the evidence obtained under section 20 of the Inquiry Control for Narcotic Substances Act 1997 before raiding their home. Not done. Prior to the destruction of the prohibited Chars, he was not issued a notice and seized that Chars had been destroyed by the magistrate's order, not under the direction of the Special Judge, no doubt, raiding the house of the accused. No search warrant was obtained from the competent court before the beating, but the sender had provided good reasons for not obtaining a search warrant in his hearing in addition to the raiding officer, under which he said that the accused had any Time would have moved to another unknown location where it would have been difficult. Due to drug recovery and lack of time he needed to take immediate action and for such reasons he should approach the competent court to obtain a search warrant for Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Drugs Act, 1997 As a directory, non-compliance would have no basis for denying the trial / sentence in the eyes of the law and would be the remedy for any irregularities under Section 37 Section 37, CR PC no. n The preparation of the certificate of destruction in the trial did not in any way constitute a prejudicial case in any case, which, for the most part, could be considered a remedy for irregularity under section 3737, CRPC. And will not affect the facts of recovery from the possession of the accused. Proof of this in section 1616 AA, CRPC case, before the sampling and the hearing of the accused before destroying the drugs seized. divorce advocates from Sakrand lawyer