Find a Lawyer

SABIR KHAN versus STATE

Section 9 was sent about a month and a half after the receipt of the Complaints Procedure for the Control of Drug Substances (Government Analyst) Regulations, 2001, Rr 4 and 5. That in this process a lot of time was wasted in view of Narcotics Materials (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, Rules 4 and 5 and that the samples were sent for more than seventeen hours analysis and this report Received after drug delay after substantial delay. Was illegal and has made the occupation illegal in the eyes of the law. Jailbreaks were illegal because Rule 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rule 2001, did not prohibit the Investigation Officer from sending samples beyond seventy. After two hours of occupation, obtain the report of the Franzic Science Laboratory after fifteen days, and such report received before the Trial Court of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which were directory and not mandatory. , Could not control the concrete clauses of the control. Under the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and they were to be implemented in a manner that does not disappoint its action under the Act, under which the rules were enacted, the control of narcotic substances (government analysts). Failure to follow the Rules, 2001, will not make the search, seizure, and arrest of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 completely unclean and volatile. The prosecution's case is doubtful, except that the compliance with the directory provision was sufficient for the results provided in the rules and even where there was no compliance, the act would have been invalidated by such non-compliance. immigration advocate from Mandra lawyer