Find a Lawyer

TAJ AKBAR versus STATE

Section 9 (c) certifies the owner of the drug as there is a contradiction between the time of filing the FIR and the sender's letter. The one who made the recovery suspicious, which was recovered, the prosecution was not presented in court and the prosecution failed to state that under what circumstances the vehicle could not be presented to the court, which added Was. The prosecution's suspected trial court had sentenced the accused to maximum punishment based on his confessional statement, otherwise it could not be declared a confession offense as far as drug recovery is concerned, he never confessed in his alleged confessional statement. Had no information about the narcotics or was smuggling the prosecution from one place to the other, and failed to prove his case through an unknown verdict. Was suspended The accused was acquitted of all the charges and was released

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011

• Haji MUHAMMAD JAN v. Mst. BIBI NOSHA 2011 YLR 82
• AUQAF DEPARTMENT through Administrator, Auqaf, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar v. Mian JAMIL SHAH 2011 CLC 83
• ASMATULLAH v. G.M., PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, PESHAWAR 2011 PLC 85
• Mian SHARIF SHAH v. NAWAB KHAN 2011 PLD 86
• Haji MUHAMMAD ZAMAN v. State 2011 MLD 93
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. Chaudhry SIRAJUDDIN 2011 PLD 98
• Haji AMANULLAH v. ABDUR RASHEED 2011 PLD 102
• DELTA CNG STATION PESHAWAR v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Law, Islamabad 2011 PTD 104

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2011 →

best advocate from Amangarh lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes