Find a Lawyer

MAMOOR SHAH versus STATE

Article 9 (b) Ruling on Drug Controls (Government Analysts) Rule 2001, R 6 Evidence Appreciation The prosecution, in the case of drugs, had a heavy legal obligation to prove that the accused was recovered from possession. The resulting material was intoxicating in any form. Recognized by the Control of the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; Franz Science Laboratory's report for this purpose will be of great importance, because in the present case, the chemical test report of the chemical laboratory could not determine the nature of the substance. However, not only the required pro forma was not prepared, but the signatures were not processed. Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemical Examiner despite the fact that the designation of the two competent officers was provided at the end of Form II, as a result of chemical analysis, which required R6 of drug control (Government Analyst ) Rules, 2001 Failure to prepare the F-Section L Report on the proposed form was in fact a violation of the statutory rules and such a legal weakness would render a chemical dissolution report in the eyes of the law, a lack of required detail in the imported report No, it can't be said. He said that the report relates to the present case. Such a report could not be used against the prosecution to prove that the material recovered from the accused's possession was in fact a marijuana crime and the accused was kept separate and He was ordered released from jail best advocate from Kech lawyer