Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ versus STATE

Testimony of Articles 9 (c), 15, 47 and 48, the raiding witnesses affected the occupation and arrested the accused, even though they were all official witnesses, but against any one of the prosecution. There was nothing on the record to suggest. The witnesses did not have any record to suggest that the recovery from the premises where the recovery took place was not present or that there was any conceivable place as argued by the defendant's lawyer as the important witness was unusually large. Long has been the subject of cross-examination, but the accused party has not been able to make much profit. None of the defendants was successful in establishing that the recovery cover was not available or fictitious, or that the accused did not own the prosecution. In the circumstances, the case succeeded beyond reasonable doubt when it came to Charset's place. A large quantity was recovered Once a case of more than 10kg of drug has been established, the law will not provide any relaxation in the case of imprisonment and it cannot be reduced to a larger quantity than the life imprisonment suspect. The marijuana was recovered, the penalty was retained by the trial court, but the amount of each accused Reduced from Rs 300,000 to Rs 30 thousand was carrying. advocates from Daud Khel lawyer