Find a Lawyer

GULBAR KHAN versus STATE

Sections 20 (c), 20, 21, 22 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), sections 103 and 537 of the spy information were recovered from the 1100-gram opium house identified by the suspect as related to his host search warrant. Is. Control of the Narcotic Substances Act of 21 and 22 was not obtained prior to the trial of the independent witnesses before the raiding operation, although there was no affiliation with the scene available, the exact quantity of the illegal drugs recovered was suspicious. The accused appeared as his own witness and did not provide any guidance. Defense evidence The trial court sentenced the defendant to seven years in prison. The RI Correction Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Act were unnecessarily directed, which, in the eyes of the law, constitutes no basis for a conviction. Will not In the absence of any irregular, punishable offense under Section 373737, CRPC, non-compliance with sections 21 &, ?? and & of the Act was not fatal to the police. ? The area was discharged because Section 25 of the Drug Substances Control Act, 1997, expressly excluded the application of Section 103, CCPC, in cases registered under the Act, the exact amount of the opium recovered. I was under severe suspicion of conviction under Section 9 (c). The act of directly associating with the quantity of the drugs recovered, so the duty of the prosecution was twofold; the first to establish the crime of the narcotic suspect; secondly, the particular quantity of the recovered by reliable evidence that It has been said that no evidence will be included to prove the exact quantity recovered from the accused immigration advocates phone number from Dhoun Kal lawyer