Sections 9, 34, 35, 36 and 48 The definition of evidence was a report by the government analyst, the allegations against the accused were that his consignment contained drugs, but the official laboratory report was negative. The report was sent to the Research Institute and according to the report, the drug was detected in the Institute's shipment. The trial court acquitted the accused on the basis that the Research Institute was not a notification laboratory. There was no addictive substance in the consignment. The second laboratory was a notified laboratory and research was not closed It was reported that the head was not notified by the Act for the Control of Narcotic substances stances of the material under test substance abuse in 1997. The Research Laboratory and Research Officers Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 were not covered. Such a report did not meet the requirements of the law. ID is not found illegal or irregular in order to be acquitted by the trial court; therefore, there was no need to interfere. went.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
