Find a Lawyer

WAHID GUL versus STATE

Section 9 (c) and 25 Rules for Controlling Drug Substances (Government Analysts), 2000, 4 and 5 Define Evidence. The prosecution's witnesses agreed on all the broad features of the case, and their statements showed no reason to give rise to all the colors of truth. The records of the testimony of the witnesses were examined, but their statements were not removed. The accused's lawyer claimed that the violation of Article 103 had an impact on the recovery, CRPC dispute power. This drug was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act 1997, which specifically excluded the application of section 103, PC police personnel were competent witnesses and their 'S testimony could not be simply dismissed because he was a police officer. Add example en The testimony of the recovery so that police officers could be falsely implicated in the case of the raid, if the prosecutor did not show any reason for being bitter or ill. The raiding party had arrested the raiding party in connection with a sample report in the Chemical Examiner's questionnaire by the raiding party. The material recovered was in positive contradictions highlighted by the accused's lawyer, it was trivial and minor and not fatal to the main charge of the recovery of drug paraphernalia; the defendant's lawyer argued that the sample was confiscated. The chat was then separated and sent to the Franzic Science Laboratory. 28 days of rehabilitation, which violates rules 4 and 5 of the Drug Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, inheritance advocates near Rajana lawyer