GUL ALAM versus THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL N.-W.F.P.; PESHAWAR
Section 9 (c) Drug Control (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, RR 4 and 5 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3), leave to appeal, refusing to destroy case property under Sessions Court orders Didn't happen Any unlawful action, since the drug samples had already been investigated in the cases and the recovery of the unknown charges from the accused operators proved to be satisfactory, on all material aspects of the prosecution. The witnesses were not charged by the accused with any hostility, unlawful desire or animosity against the witnesses of the prosecution because of the unlawful testimony of the witnesses, because his false allegations amounted to eleven kilograms of hashish without any serious. The accused in Rules 4 and 5 of the enmity cannot be overcome. The Drugs (Government Analysts) Regulations, 2001, which, as a directory and were not mandatory, did not address the important provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 19. and 97 and frustrate its purpose. Failure to comply with the said rules will not invalidate the search, seizure and arrest under the Parents Act and will not make the whole matter doubtful, except the delivery of appropriate articles for expert opinion to the results of the rule. To be shipped to In the absence of any objection in connection with tampering or manipulation of any person, the plaintiff could not be found to have suffered any unlawful or weak, legal or factual appeal. The accused was denied accordingly.
