Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE ALIAS SHEEQA versus STATE

The testimony of the prosecution of the testimony of Section 9 (c), 21, 25 and 31 of the defendants had no animosity or enmity against the accused, it supported the recovery of 1010 grams of hashish, in such quantities ras fours. There was no possibility of ake fake plants. Neither a member of the raiding party with the accused nor any other culprit could be made without any corrupt motive. The head of the raiding party that received the detective's report in Syria could not arrange a search warrant from any court and had acted strictly in accordance with Section 21 of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act 1997, without committing a violation. There was nothing material in the case. Entering the house and occupying the \ charsof was not viable, but it did support litigation. The provisions of the CrPC of section 103 were not applied to the search and arrests under the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, the testimony of the non-attendance recovery proceedings of the private was not fatal to the prosecution case. The other witnesses also alleged that they did not deny police raids and the recovery of marijuana from the house, so it was unclear whether anyone else was living with him or detaining the accused. I was interrogated by them, which led to the recovery of the hidden "hashish" and Such exercise was justified under section 31 of the said Act. A ten-day delay in sending the sample parcel to the Chemical Examiner required that, if the sample parcel remained intact, the copy pakistani advocates Mastoi lawyer