Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus STATE

Definitions of section 9 (b) (c) and 18 evidence, where two FIs were dropped against the accused in the same police station. In the first FIR, it was alleged that the accused received 100 grams of hashish and 225 grams of opium and in the second FIR, the accused received 1090 grams of hashish and 375 grams of opium. In connection with the first FIR, the accused received five. He was sentenced to a year in prison. With a fine of RI 10,000, while under the second FIR, the accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs 30,000, all the evidence of the prosecution comprising the state witnesses testified on their testimony and the recovery of the drug. In this regard, his reputation remained unchanged. There was no reason for the alleged involvement of the accused in the case where the drugs were recovered, they were not in large quantities, so the court was obliged to weigh them in front of their eyes. A slight difference in weight can matter. Outside the scope of any other subdivision of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Act 1997, which would be punishable by court quantities, the circumstances were to ensure that the parcels were received and sealed by the chemical examiner. The trial court had to ensure that, as well as the trial court, had made sure that they did not take the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses in connection with the weight of the drug as a gospel truth court. In the present case, it was believed that the conviction of the accused in both cases was justified in relation to the weight of the drugs recovered without confirmation of the weight, but the punishment given to the accused was not in proportion to the recovery. And it did not. us immigration advocates from Takhtbai lawyer