Find a Lawyer

IQBAL KHAN versus STATE

Sections 9 (c), 21, 25, 29, 35 and 36 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 103 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), prosecution of testimony of section 75 evidence, two witnesses to establish their case. Defense. It could not prove why the police would falsely include the suspects, especially since no one from the raiding party had any hostility to it, irrespective of the fact that the police in this case had one of 1270 grams of marijuana. There will be large amounts in which the prosecution's witnesses were consistent. The timing, location and location of its influence was modest in its recovery, and no specific amount was specified in the modest priorities of Control Section 35 and 36 of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The recovered material should be sent as a sample for general analysis unless otherwise stated in Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Material Act, 1997. You have found the allegation of the allegations to be true and the allegation that the allegations are true. Was sent from Chemical for analysis, only a small amount of the substance was recovered. The accused could be considered and the rest of the substance, which was not sent for chemical analysis, was disposed of, in the circumstances, section 103 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, CRPC application Was excluded, which is in compliance with Section 103, CR. The PC was compulsory, it was removed if a police officer witnessed a complaint and there was no legal prohibition on becoming an investigating officer, so he did not allege that he There was no marijuana or drugs before. famous lower court advocate from Guddu lawyer