Find a Lawyer

AAMIR KHAN versus STATE

Sections 9 (c), 25 and 29 show evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution witnesses, the minor witnesses in the recovery memorandum by which the prohibited marijuana was seized and the Investigation Officer subjected to lengthy and probation investigations. Was gone, but nothing could be gained from it. The accused said that the witnesses were consistent on all material details and that their statements were credible, admitting that he was innocent and falsely accused in this case, had no meaning because he was not Was able to show that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were influenced by the accused or that they relied on the testimony of the hostile witnesses and relied on it correctly by the trial court, alleging that they were somehow involved in the prosecution's story. Could not create a contradiction or error, the contradictions noted by the lawyer in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses were minor. Were And can not be considered sufficient to thwart the Section 25 lawsuit of the mine, the Narcotic Substance Act 1997 toll, in which 103 Cr Cr application was dismissed, the recovery was not made by any person, Had no substance in the trial did not in any way prejudice the breach of the certificate of destruction, most commonly under Section 7 537, CRPC, without any irregularities. Can be considered treatable and cannot reject facts recovered from the motor vehicle when the defendant made a special request, proving his / her request. Ounces will refer to it. The charge that the original culprit, the driver of the car, was dropped by the customs staff best advocate from Gilgit lawyer