Find a Lawyer

MST. NOOR BIBI versus STATE

Appreciating the evidence of Clauses 9 (c), 25 and 29, the prosecution's witnesses supported the recovery of 6900 grams of hashish from the suspect's possession, both of which said that the witnesses had agreed in full on the material points and that the accused had no Also failed to identify the type. Contradictions in their statements The minor contradictions made by the accused's lawyer were trivial, so it cannot be assumed that the trial was thwarting the prosecution's witnesses, even though they were policemen, but none of them There was no reason or encouragement. The accused's lawyer did not appeal any hostility or resentment against the lawyer. It is said that witnesses have made consistent statements on the material points with the witnesses' testimony and the accused has failed to identify any contradiction in his statements. The investigation does not affect the prosecution's case. That was, when the investigating officer gave sufficient cause for the anticipation of the advance, based on information received from the Chief Chemical Examiner's office in connection with the marijuana samples, which turned out to be a case plan and litigation, under the Drugs Act 1997 Was positive of Section 25, which dismissed the application of Section 103, CRPC. Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Stances Act 1997 provided that speculation was made about illegal articles, unless a person rejects such a felony and the trial is presented by the court. For this reason, a fair review of the evidence is not shown. The default principle of criminal justice is the absence of any unlawful interference or weakness of the unknown decision. property advocate from Kurram lawyer