Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RASHID versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Conan Shaheedat (10 of 1984), Article 132 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 benefited from the definition of evidence in suspected chief and cross-examination, drug evidence retrieval recording site plan, Preparation of Investigating Officer's Search Warranty Duty, Not Receiving Effect FIR, It was filed by the Complainant / Investigating Officer that 3 7kg of heroin, 27 5, from the suspect (two real brothers) arrested. Kg of hashish and 1 7 was recovered. The kilogram of opium and mansion from his home were also allegedly recovered from two licensed pistols, 12 bore pump action guns and a motorcycle in his statements under 5 342, CRPC told the trial court. The case was involved because his family was involved in serious rivalry and his father and real maternal uncle were already in death cell. The accused also raised objection to the prosecution's oral and documentary testimony. One accused faces up to seven years in prison and a fine and the other a life sentence. The witness of the recovery of moderation, the police constable, categorically admitted that he did not take the exam in Chief but was himself appointed by the trial court under Article 132 under the Chief of the Canaanite Evidence Examination. First a witness was to be recorded and then a cross examination was done, the witness's statement in the examination was not legally recorded as it was not a statement of the witness, but the order of the trial court without statement itself. Is. The witness cannot be used as a piece of evidence against the accused, documented by the evidence relating to the recovery of the narcotics from the accused. best advocate from Goular Khel lawyer