Find a Lawyer

HAYAT KHAN versus STATE

A very important link to the chain was missing in relation to the sample delivery definition of Section 9 (c) drug possession and trafficking, with no witnesses sending a sample of allegedly recovered drug samples from the state customs warehouse to the Chemical Examiner. Did not appear to prove it. Samples taken for Office s office cannot be said to be the same and not tamper-proof, and were sent to the Chemical Examiner's lab report stating that one sample is "cannabis" and the other is "Ganja". Cannot be relied upon as a general sentence. The suspect's report was a copy of the original and the chemical executor lying on top of the bus did not bear the signature of the alleged intoxicant and was recovered from it and it cannot be said that the accused was in his possession. And it cannot be assumed that the ordinary wise person sitting on the bus would, in his capacity, claim ownership of any intoxicant in which the plea of life imprisonment was granted. The prosecution could prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. I had failed to convict and approve the accused was set aside and the accused was acquitted and was set at liberty. \ R \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• Miss AMY J. KING v. KHALID AZIZ 2011 CLC 876
• IMAN ULLAH v. JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE RAJANPUR DISTRICT 2011 YLR 883
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ SAEED v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Department 2011 PLC(CS) 884
• Mst. NAEEM AKHTAR v. WAKEEL BADSHA 2011 PCrLJ 886
• NAVEED KHAN v. HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Chairman 2011 CLC 893
• Mst. SHAZIA SHAFI v. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2011 MLD 894
• ABDUL HAMEED v. State 2011 PCrLJ 895
• Mst. BILQEES AKHTAR v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 2011 PLC(CS) 897

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

law firms from Taunsa sharif lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes