Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD LAWAL versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Defines Drug Trafficking Evidence. It has been alleged that he has refused to recover the narcotics and that the specimen sent for this chemical inspection is to be kept in safe custody and sent to his office. The Chemical Examiner proved on record that same day that the sample could not be forwarded to the Chemical Examiner within two days of its recovery. There was no illicit desire or resentment against the accused of the rehabilitation witnesses. Was done In this case hidden in Glow Sticks, weighing 250kg, the impressive evidence of intent to smuggle 14 years by conviction / surpassing the nature and quantity of drugs recovered from the RI given to the accused. Was not abused according to \ r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• ZAFAR IQBAL v. State 2011 YLR 1692
• ASKARI AVIATION (PVT.) LTD. v. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY 2011 MLD 1695
• WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA v. ABDUR RAZZAQ 2011 YLR 1701
• SARDAR MUHAMAMD v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI 2011 YLR 1706
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. PAKISTAN, through Secretary Defence, Islamabad 2011 YLR 1710
• IMDAD HUSSAIN v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1716
• TANVIR v. State 2011 YLR 1719
• AHMED NASAR ULLAH v. SHAHDAT ALI 2011 CLC 1723

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

ask a advocate free from Narang Mandi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes