Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAEEM versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), the evidence of the prosecution supporting the accused was consistent and convincing that the prosecution had successfully discharged the accused on the relevant date and time. Was detected In the possession of 9kg of marijuana, samples sent to the Chemical Examiner were found to have been found to have been found by the marijuana defense to have the evidence cited or defamed, at no stage of the defense was the defense tried in the trial. Was. It cannot be said that there was a reduction in the amount of samples taken from illegal substances, as a result of the chemical examiner being examined in court for the minimum required amount of material required for the proceedings. That can be effective. It is likely that the Chemical Examiner does not report its contents after inspection of the substance, therefore, it would be necessary to have the chemical excavator supplied to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of re-chemical testing so that it was alleged that it had defended itself. I have to confirm the request and he did not appear in the witness box himself or present any evidence that was reasonable or even possible to identify, and he does not deserve to be benefited. Was because he proceeded to the said application in response to the question posed to him during his examination under section 342. Or it was, under CRPC, the finding of coordination between the two courts did not face any legal weakness or injustice. Re-evaluation of evidence requiring leave to appeal to defendants denied female advocates from Kotla Arab Ali Khan lawyer