Find a Lawyer

NAEEM KHAN versus STATE

Appreciating the evidence of Section 9 (c) drug trafficking not only that the prosecution's evidence of the recovery of legal charges was proven through the statements of the prosecution's witnesses, but that it alleged itself in its statement under Section 342. The CRPC confessed to the prohibited drug recovery It was alleged that he was carrying a prohibited truck on the truck, who knew consciously about the prohibited letters hidden in the truck's secret palm. That the trial court upheld the controversial decision of the sentence and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused, in the circumstances \ r \ n

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011

• SARDAR HAFEEZ v. State 2011 PCrLJ 611
• MUHAMMAD WAHEED v. S.H.O. POLICE STATION CITY MANSEHRA 2011 MLD 613
• TAHIR MEHMOOD AFRIDI v. MUHAMMAD DAYAR 2011 YLR 615
• AQEEL AHMED ABBASI v. Mst. SURIYA DURRANI 2011 CLC 625
• Mst. MARYAM BIBI v. SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P. 2011 CLC 638
• ZAHID JAMIL v. Mst. SAEEDA BANO 2011 MLD 639
• HABIB ULLAH KHAN v. NADIR KHAN 2011 CLC 656
• ABDUL GHAFAR v. NAZIR KHAN 2011 PCrLJ 663

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2011 →

law firms from Talagang lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes