Find a Lawyer

GHULAM JALLANI versus STATE

Sections 9 (c), 21 and 22 define the evidence for drug possession in which no unlawful action was encountered until the investigation officer's maid was established. No financial reinforcement was established against the prosecutor or the investigating officer denied the vehicle or drum ownership from which the prohibited material was recovered was not stated. That he was carrying the said drum to convey to anyone and the articles in the possession of the accused proved that he was consciously occupied, no material contradiction was identified in the prosecution's case. That is, the trial court reviewed the material according to the sentence in the trial. The sentence given to the accused was seriously justified after the circumstances dismissed the appeal

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011

• MUHAMMAD KHALIL v. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE, PISHIN 2011 PLD 21
• MUHAMMAD SHOAIB v. PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ICT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD 2011 CLD 23
• AURANGZEB v. State 2011 MLD 23
• CHAKAR KHAN v. AZAD KHAN 2011 PLD 26
• SHABIR AHMED v. State 2011 PCrLJ 31
• Mst. SHAHZADI v. State 2011 PLD 32
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM v. State 2011 PLD 40
• LASBELLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HUB v. PRISM PRINTER (PVT.) LTD. 2011 PLD 48

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2011 →

famous high court advocate from Kharan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes