Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAEED versus STATE

Section 497 Control of Narcotic Substances (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (C), 2 (G) (H) (T) (U) (Z), 3 and 51 Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Regulations, 2001 , R4 (2) Denial of bail for recovery of psychological substance, delay of nine days for sending sample to Chemical Examiner, Control of drug substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001 No provision of directory provisions, FIR I was told that upon identifying the co-accused, PsychoTropic Drug (Buprenorphine) was recovered from his custody. The accused claimed that there was a nine-day delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner while in accordance with Rule 4 (2) of the Narcotic Substances Control (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, within 72 hours of the recovery of the prohibited chemicals. Examiners were to be sent, so the delay in sampling made the whole process against it. That the liquid allegedly recovered from the accused was in liquid form and that the chemical audiometer was required under section 3 of the Drug Substances Act 1997 to determine the actual percentage of the drug recovered that was not doll by the chemical examiner. The drug was allegedly exported in powder form, but the Chemical Examiner's report found that the drug was in liquid form and was prohibited in the open public market and easily accessible to everyone. The trial court dismissed the bail plea of the Control of Control accused's legal bail 4 (2). The Narcotic Substance (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, even if the investigating officer was obliged to send samples within a specified time, there was no delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner unless famous supreme court advocate from Gaggo Mandi lawyer