Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NOOR versus STATE

Sections 497, 54, 59 and 156 (2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 6, 9, 21 and 22, denied the defendant's lawyer claiming that the defendant sought and allegedly However, the complainant, who had recovered the property from them, was unable to do so in the light of the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Drug Prohibition Act 1997, which could be used to identify any Did not rely on the person's personal knowledge or information obtained from him. Drugs in the vehicle in which the suspects were traveling, but he was examining the vehicles at his high command, and in the meanwhile the coach was found in the jurisdiction of the police post where he stated that a section was posted at the front. Since his charge and no superior officer were available at the said location, in view of Section I4, which was a chargeable offense, in addition to his powers under Section 5, CR PC. Section 59, the St. accused under CRPC, even if he was not authorized to investigate or search under Section 21 of the Narcotic Substitute Act 1997, the Assistant Sub Inspector Police arrested the accused on the spot, in the police station. Submitted, FIR was lodged and subsequently investigated by the sub-inspector, who was able to investigate the matter, there was no illegal arrest in the arrest of the accused and confiscation of property. The case was investigated and after being taken seriously by the court, irregularities in the investigation will not affect the trial and the trial cannot be badly done. Was not presented in evidence, was a defense request that could be appreciated after proper production. family advocate from Sherani lawyer