Find a Lawyer

NAJAM KHAN versus STATE

Concerning the charges laid against section 9 (c) and 21 criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), section 342 re-examined the evidence for the arrest of the accused in violation of the Control Section 21 of the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997 Failure to submit special question to the court. The charge against the accused was that 3400 grams of opium was recovered from his possession. The accused claims that he was arrested by a sub-inspector officer in violation of Section 21 of the Narcotic Substance Act 1997, therefore, the accused cannot be punished under section 9. (C) The Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, the trial court sentenced the offender and sentenced him to life imprisonment The Chief Court, on appeal, reduced his sentence under section 342, CRPC, to two years imprisonment. Sentenced The charges were laid by the trial court with the accused, so that they could explain the points that were relied upon by the prosecutor and which did not directly question the charges against them to influence the court. By doing so, the trial court has acted in gross illegality, which is equivalent to identifying the alleged contradictions of the alleged substance, which is contained in the prosecution's evidence for the recovery of the intoxicating substance, which weighed in place. Is. Arrest, parcel preparation and chemical examiner samples sent to the Chemical Examiner Police Constable were not presented to the court as a witness if the suspect was suddenly arrested without prior notice, or where authorized at the time of the information The officer was not available and the suspect feared missing, saying the fact that the accused advocate from Chicha watni lawyer