Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus STATE

Section 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Code (v. 1898), conviction of the testimony of section 103 evidence, reduction of the prosecution, beyond any doubt, led to a judicial examination against the minor witnesses, but nothing to the contrary. As far as the Investigation Officer was concerned, the order sheet clearly showed that he was present on 2/3 occasions, but because of the absence of property or other reasons, his statement was not recorded. The best evidence was not reduced by the prosecution provisions of Section 103, CRPC was excluded by the Narcotic Substances Act of 1997, operated by the accused The truck was secretly recovered in large quantities from the itch and its co-accused alleged in its statement under Section 234, CCP Yee confessed to his presence on the truck at the relevant time and failed to prove that he was not waiting to be re-prosecuted for the drugs wrapped in 17 seats, without any doubt proving his case against the accused. After doing so, the trial court properly recorded the accused's conviction, the accused was a driver from another province, while the co-accused was a cleaner who belonged to the cleaner. The other city, Narcotic, was smuggled in by a large bird, who was scot free and the man driving the truck or any other vehicle was caught under the law torture, the accused has been reduced to ten years in prison and fined five. Reduced to Rs. 200,000 from Rs advocate for immigration from Larkana lawyer