Find a Lawyer

GHUNCHA GUL versus STATE

Sections 9 (c), 25, 29 and 48 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), Section 103 conviction of testimony, lack of search proceedings, both of the prosecution's witnesses agreed on material points and which also indicated contradictions. Cannot be done The prosecution's statement states that the witnesses faced lengthy exams with each other, but they were successful, both witnesses being police officers, but nothing to show It was not on the record that he felt any kind of illness. Or that the nature of the matter indicated in this case was trivial in a false way and that the prosecution's case was not harmed in any way by the Chemical Examiner's report. Cross was charged with violating the provisions of section 103, CRPC. As a respected resident of the police jurisdiction, there was no demand for involvement in the recovery proceedings o Not recreational because under Section 25 of the Drugs Substance Act 1997, the CCPC was prosecuted. Was excluded from the circumstances, proved the accused's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and successfully resolved them with firm and convincing evidence. The accused made no attempt to discharge his burden under Section 29 of the Anti-Drug Control Act, 1997, the trial decision was based on the proper application of the law and the proper definition of evidence, However, he cannot be blamed. Was 30/32 years old famous high court advocate from Naseerabad lawyer