Find a Lawyer

MUNIR KHAN versus STATE

Section 9 (c), 20 and 25 Rules of Drugs (Government Analysts), 2001, RR 4 and 5 Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), Validating Section 103 Evidence Two recovered witnesses were found to be independent witnesses No reason. There was consensus on the material aspects of the recovery of the accused involved in the case, there was no material contradiction in the statement of the witnesses; secondly, in connection with the recovery of marijuana from the accused's possession. Quantity was identified as recovered from the possession of the accused and the prosecution's witnesses were consistent with the article's timing, location, presence and recovery, and indicated the manner in which it was impacted. The contradictions were irrelevant and did not matter. The Control of Narcotic Material Act is excluded under section 25 of the Act 1997 and under section 20 of the Act, being a directory in nature, compliance cannot be construed as a strong basis for a bad view of the chemicals. Extracting a small amount from each packet for inspection was sufficient to prove that the Franzik Science Laboratory received the marijuana after sufficient delay in capturing sample separation, while 15 days after sample recovery. The report was sent and such delay was illegal and in the eyes of the law the occupation would be invalid. That was, so that sending him off-topic articles was delayed. In the opinion of the expert concerned, in the absence of objection in the case of any tampering or manipulation, the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused. online advocate from Liaquat Pur lawyer