Find a Lawyer

KHAN BACHA versus STATE

The testimony of Section 9 (b) Conan Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 49 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), definition of suspicion in section 103 was outside the scope of section 103, on the PCP model. Do not seal immediately. After the recovery of 120 grams of impact, the alleged accused / appellant trial court recovered the accused from his possession and sentenced him to two years imprisonment and a fine that the complainant had dismissed before the court that two of the hashish. The bars have been removed as samples. However, the adviser stated that only one stick was separated from the case property and that no witness before the court stated that it was sealed when the substance was recovered. The prosecutor claims that the counsel's in-laws stated that the sample was sealed on the spot. And such contradictions were to be considered a minor mistake in the witness statements. The fact of stamping was outside the purview of Section 103, CR PC and was influenced by Article 49 of the Law Bin Shahadat, 1984, which protected the list of protected articles during the search and from where the articles. The facts that have been recovered are mentioned. The consultations do not fall within the scope of section 103, the CCP evidence was admissible, so it cannot be relied upon if the prosecutor wanted to establish a fact outside the scope of section 103, the CRPC. It was necessary to state the above. On the oath before the court, both witnesses (complainant and conscience) did not state that the sample was sealed at the site of the incident, a fact which, even as mentioned in the ash counselor mentioned, was admissible in evidence. And this immigration advocate from Sangote lawyer