Find a Lawyer

MST. SHABANA RIYASAT versus STATE

The absence of testimony from Section 9 (c) and 25 of the evidence in his absence affected the recovery from a room of the participant's home, saying that the presence of two counselors had the effect of recovery, but the prosecutor asked the counselor of the aforesaid police. Didn't test one. He admitted that there were a large number of houses on both sides of the co-accused's home, but when he raided the house of the accused, he did not call the public. Ignoring this fact, the evidence was misrepresented. The heroin recovery did not affect the identification of the suspects from the room where the co-accused owned the house. Apart from the accused, the other persons also resided in the room from which the accused had no bedroom. Unless the recovery effect is taken out of the suspect's possession and beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted. The material available on record has shown that the marital dispute exists between the two investigating officers. And the friend of the accused location in which the raid was located was a densely populated area, but no private independent conscience in that area was witnessed for the recovery of Section 103, the CRPC, even though he was a Narcotic Substance. Unable to control the Act of 1997, however, Section 25 of the said Act prohibited anti-narcotic force police Or presence did not prevent it from affecting the recovery, when it was settled that the notice of the raid in the house during the day. At the time of the raid, which was otherwise natural as she was a woman, her husband was staying in the house. best advocate from Kala Shah Kaku lawyer