Find a Lawyer

IZHAR MUBARAK versus STATE

Testimony of Section 9 (c) evidence revealed the recovery of 60kg post in front of the accused's shop, the testimony of two prosecutors, plus the statement of another prosecution witness confirmed the statements of the prosecution witnesses. ? The Chemical Examiner reported in its report that it contained poppy heads, straw and broken pieces of dust, that the four packets sent to the Chemical Examiner contained narcotic substances, and statements of prosecutors' testimonies and chemicals. His report was positive in the presence of the report. The inspector, who appointed the investigating officer as an ating tomato of the prohibited material, had no legal significance because he was not an expert. The accused did not examine any evidence of the prosecution that he recovered from the eff. The suspect did not. Even suggest any aspect of the matter to a witness; the prosecution includes the witness whose statement has been rejected by an expert. The Chemical Examiner's Recovery Memo and the complaint, as proven by prosecutor's testimony, left no room for the defendant to hold that the suspect was not in the prohibited possession, as he was arrested by the police. When he unloaded four bags in front of his shop, since the trial court examined the post-recovered from the accused, his non-disclosure was of no importance and as a result he was able to file a lawsuit or trial. Will not end what happened in accordance with the law. There was no material contradiction between the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and in the minor contradiction identified by the accused's lawyer, there was no case for the prosecution. online advocate from Kunjah lawyer