Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HASSAN versus STATE

Sections 9 (c) and 25 Drugs Control (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, 4 and 5 were convictions of testimony, both lengthy and lengthy in order to break the version of the prosecution, but to no avail. There was nothing wrong. No illicit desire or resentment could be identified for making false accusations of the accused against the police officers, it was unreliable that such large quantities of 40kg prohibited charms were imposed by the policemen for murder. ? The suspects were claimed by their superiors and the earned credit council that the specimen seized from Chagas' was transported to a forensic science laboratory at a desolate stage and wasted considerable time in the process - Narcotic Substance. Regarding 4 and 5 of the Control of (Government Analyst) Rules 2001, that the samples were sent for analysis over two to two hours and the report received was illegal and submitted the law was invalid in the eyes of the law. Because the rules did not prohibit the investigating officer from sending samples after the last two hours of occupation, after 15 days The forensic science laboratory report will be received and the report previously obtained was a directory of the Trial Court of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Regulations, 2001, and was not required to say that the rules related to the Narcotic Material Stances Act of 1997 Rules cannot be controlled, failure to comply with the rules will not result in search, capture and arrest. Regardless of the delay in the rules and regulations, make the entire case of pending and unstable and legal litigation doubtful. top advocate from Ubaro lawyer