Find a Lawyer

ZULFIQAR ALI versus STATE

Definition of evidence in Sections 9 (c), 14, 15 and 25. Seven of the prosecution's witnesses supported the recovery of a vehicle driven by 67kg of marijuana and 2kg of opium. The contentious statements of the prosecution's witnesses on the oath were sufficient to link the accused to the transport. Why the police would falsely include the suspects, especially when no one from the raiding party had any enmity with them, even after confessing ownership through one of the co-accused, proved the other suspects. Was a knowledgeable and participating motorist in exporting recovered drugs from which drugs were recovered. It was run by the owner's brother was the original. The accused had to retrieve the keys from the possession, which contained the address of the co-accused, where the prohibited material was to be delivered. It was also proved that the co-accused was deliberately prosecuted for perpetrating the offense, under sections 14 and 15 of drug articles, charged under the Act of 1997, in any case under suspicion. It was eventually proved that extracting a small quantity of each packet for chemical inspection was sufficient to prove that all the recovered material was prohibited. Should the recovered narcotics be sent to the Chemical Examiner, they had to contend with contradictions; the contradictions indicated by the defendants were so minor that they could not stand the basis of the trial. Done, a large number of cannabis and opium have been recovered, it cannot be suspected. On the basis of such minor discrepancies, if any, occur over time famous supreme court advocate from Naseerabad lawyer