Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AMIN versus STATE

In section 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Code (v. 1898), section 103 presented two witnesses to prove the conviction of testimony, reduction of prosecution, arrest of accused and recovery of prohibited charges from his possession. The duo said the witnesses had the support of the recovery of 1,100 grams of hashish from the possession of the accused, and from their evidence, the recovery of marijuana was established at a specified date, time and place and their pernicious statements were made to the accused by the commission of the crime. Enough to connect, which was a policeman, they said. Permanent statements about material points and accusations failed to indicate any contradiction in their statements. The contradictions stated by the accused's counsel were so minor that on the basis of which it cannot be said that the trial case was unsuccessful. Hostility or hostility against the prosecution witnesses along with the police witnesses were competent witnesses in the eyes of the law and unlocked, so it can be proved that the police officers had a reason to falsely impeach the accused for any reason, His statements cannot be dismissed simply because he was an employee of the police department, in the absence of any motive or reason, the trial court rightly believed his evidence in the Control of Narcotic Material Act. Under the provisions of the Act 1997, the application for the stand of section 103, CCPC, was specifically dismissed, that the police Performing was to appear was trapped in the false allegations in this case, the accused that he is without any substance. Anyone in the investigation us immigration advocates from Naudero lawyer