Find a Lawyer

BANARAS KHAN versus STATE

Section 516A & 561A Control of the Narcotic Substance Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (C), 32, 33 (4) and 74 Sudary Vehicles, nothing in the petition was recorded to indicate that the vehicle contained Was used. Without a doubt, the commission of the crime, along with information on the application of section 74 of the Drug Substance Control Act 1997, used the accused or any of his accomplices to import, export, or transport drug paraphernalia. Vehicle custody prohibited. By the end of the matter, relatives or any private person, but by any interpretation, the application of the provisions cannot be extended to cover an owner who had no involvement or involvement in the crime, The provisions contained in it cannot be independently decided. In section 32 of the Act; which protected the rights of the owner, who had no conscious hand in the commission of the penalty, the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the confiscated vehicle and his claim was based on the registration book and Letter of Transfer The applicant was not an accused in the relevant criminal case. And nothing was recovered from his possession in the said case. Nothing was available on the record of the investigation of this case, which shows that the applicant had no knowledge that the accused was guilty of any drug-related crime. Will use your car to commit and the law does not permit it to be imposed. To prove the applicant's lack of information in this regard to the applicant who knew about the rights of the owners who had no knowledge of the commission of the crime or had no recourse to the crime, he would best advocate from Chacklala lawyer