Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF versus STATE

Sections 497, 54, 59 and 156 (2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9, 21 and 22, denied the defendant's counsel stating that the defendant had been searched and allegedly property. Received by the complainant, which is A, Section I was not authorized to carry out the provisions of Section 21 and 22 of the Drug Substances Act, 1997. The further punishment of the accused was that the provisions of the law were violated. The accused, entitled to bail privileges, was a convicted felon. Under section 4, the CRPC, in addition to its powers, was Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. , It was stated that the complainant could arrest the accused under section 59, CRPC, even if he did not have the authority to investigate or search under section 21. In the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, the accused were arrested on the spot, as was done by a sub-inspector who was capable of investigating the case, in any case the arrest of the accused and the illegal seizure of property. The action was not committed, otherwise, if investigated by an unauthorized officer, Section 156 (2), the CR PC will protect such action. The trial was conducted and after admitting it through the court, irregularities in the investigation will not affect the trial which will not be disturbed and the prosecution's testimony against the accused was fully supported and This was confirmed by a chemical analyst report. In the circumstances the bail was not entitled to waiver \ r \ n patent advocate from Khyber Agency lawyer