Find a Lawyer

SUHAIL KHAN ALIAS SALEH MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Defining the evidence of Sections 9 (c) and 36 (2), the lack of police witnesses unanimously supported the prosecution's case; without a contradiction the complaining policeman could investigate the case himself, but such process Was declared outdated and ordered to be examined. Highlights the activities of police officers who were self-complaining, witnesses and investigating officers becoming Section 103, cases under the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 were not applied to control the CRPC, Investigating Officer private recovery. Was not obliged to arrange witnesses, but in the present case no private person was willing to be a witness, despite his efforts, the police witnesses were as good as private witnesses until the evidence of the heroin showed This was not proven by defending prejudice or enmity against the accused of weight. While the Chemical Examiner's report showed almost twice as much in each sample, such a clear contradiction not only made the heroin's entire weight suspicious but also suspected its recovery, the Oral Proof Chemical Report Because of the conflict, the court had to rely on the government analyst's report based on section 36 (2). The Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997 did not prove a charge against the heroin recovery accused, and he was acquitted of a report on the specimen of the same chemical examiner's chart that was recovered from oral evidence. His conviction was upheld when Chars was accused, but given the weight of marijuana, he was already sentenced to life imprisonment. divorce advocates from Mingora lawyer