Find a Lawyer

SAJJAN versus STATE

Section 9 (b) Police Order (22 of 2002), Article 18 (4) was full of contradictions in the definition of evidence case, which involved clear and big issues, but these persons were either seen by the trial court or Could not attract the attention of He said that beyond the contradictions, astounding statements of witnesses and all the facts and circumstances of the case, the whole story of the prosecution has been suspected that the witnesses had told a fake story at the police station, both witnesses allegedly recovered from the accused. The details of the volleyball were not given. They did not disclose that it was in powder form or in solid form and if it was in solid form, their number was a sample, which was sent to the Chemical Examiner 16 days after the case was registered. Was sent, he was in the form of a recall of multiple dark gray fragments and in the absence of a description of the cannabis in the FIR, it cannot be said that the sample sent to the Chemical Examiner after so long There was no reason for an unusual sending delay. The Chemical Examiner had a delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner, to mention the details of the recapture and the FIR in the memorandum of the FIR, it was evident that the Chassist sub inspector was rushed without further investigation. I was sued. The police order itself, in violation of the provisions of 2002, openly violated not only his credibility, but he also barred himself from disciplinary proceedings. Fines under Police and Order 2002, an investigation by A Section I, which was completely illegal best law firm from Kot Radha Kishan lawyer