Find a Lawyer

JAMEEL KHAN versus STATE

Appreciating Section 9 (c) and 25 evidence, the cabinet of a truck recovered forty-eight packets of opium from secret drawers; each bundle contained 4kg and the total opium became 192kg, four in each. There were only two kilograms of kilograms. Separately were sealed and sent for inspection, and no sample was extracted from the remaining 46 bags, including a version of the complaint containing 188kg on the truck, along with two suspects for driving on the border. The diversion was diverted to the border, and opium was recovered from the truck. Witnesses to the other prosecution testified that the two suspects had general knowledge of hiding opium in the truck's dashboard; no description of the empty truck's journey from Swabi (Border) to this location was offered. ? 192kg of opioid overdose proved beyond any reasonable doubt y Only the police officers were witnesses in the case in the absence of any hostility or dual motives to get involved in the case. The evidence can be relied on because the police officers were good witnesses like any other citizen until some kind of misconduct was established. Otherwise, the provisions of section 103, CRPC, were also excluded under the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The accused could not prove that they had just picked up the truck because their claim was not substantiated by any other independent. The defendant's acquittal was on a very different basis than the defendant's case, the prosecutor said, that the prosecutor had a permanent, firm, attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Chak 4 b c lawyer