ASKARI LEASING LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER versus STATE
Applicants were denied by the section 516 A&439 Control of the Narcotic Substance Act (XXV of 1997), Section 9 (C) Session Court by the superintendent of the vehicle. The culprit was recovered and the police seized it. There was no allegation on the record that the applicant company was aware of the alleged user of the vehicle leased by the accused as a financial company, even without any suspicion. In this case, on the record of the case against any officer of the applicant company, there was no inquiry into the letters in which the applicant was admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle, thus on the Superior Impound Order of the Sessions Court. He was entitled to be released. On the one hand, the applicant was ordered to release the vehicle on the basis of the same and on a superficial review request which resulted in his acceptance.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
patent advocate from Blitang lawyer
