Find a Lawyer

AMJAD versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Drugs (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, Rules 4 and 5 were charged with delaying sending samples to the Franz Science Laboratory that the Franz Science Laboratory received samples after several delays. The doctrine of Regulation 4 and 5 of the Drug Substance Control (Government Analyst) 2001, the sample sent for analysis, received two hours and reports, was illegal and the occupation invalidated in the eyes of the law. Was disputed because the dispute was canceled because the RR 4 (Government Analyst) Rules of Control of Narcotic Substances, 2001, investigated officer After the last two hours of receiving the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was seized after fifteen days, send sample and imposes no restrictions on receiving this report. Before the trial court, the language employed in the very language and the effect of its violation was implicated in it, which said that it was a directory of the Gulf Code and not mandatory control. The Cotic Substance (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, could not control the basic provisions of the Control of Narcotic Materials Stances Act 1997 and could be applied in such a way that the purpose of this Act could not be frustrated. Which states that the failure to compose rules was made. The follow-up was held that the rules would not make the search, seizure and arrest absolutely unreasonable and unstable under the Code of Conduct Act 1997 and would make the whole trial case suspicious, except in the rules of the rules. Compliance was substantial, and even where there was no compliance at all, solicitors from Murree lawyer