Find a Lawyer

NOOR MUHAMMAD LUHAR versus STATE

Section 9 (b) (c) drug possession testimony alleges that counsel did not mention whether or not 500 gram prohibited samples were extracted from all eleven packets, thus excluding such samples. Will be understood by The only packet that was attracted to Section 9 (b) and not the Section 9 (c) of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act 1997, accepting the accused's plea, was the High Court's section on narcotic substances. 9 (c) changed the sentence of the accused. , One of 1997 under section 9 (b) of the Act section r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• SAFDAR ALI SAHITO v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh 2011 PLC(CS) 956
• SHAH NAWAZ v. BIRJLAL 2011 MLD 956
• CITIBANK N.A. v. ABDULLAH APPARELS (PVT.) LIMITED 2011 CLD 959
• ZAFAR AHMED v. SHAMSUDDIN 2011 MLD 961
• SHAH NAWAZ MUNAWAR v. UNITED BANK LIMITED through Branch 2011 CLC 964
• MUHAMMAD SALEH v. State 2011 YLR 965
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. State 2011 MLD 967
• GHULAM RASOOL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 971

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

power of attorney advocate Hattian lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes