Find a Lawyer

SHAHZADA versus STATE

In section 9 (c) of Conan Shahadat (10 of 1984), the driver of the recovery of the evidence for Article 122 drug arrest escaped from Digi, of which 180 kilograms of hashish and one kilo of opium were recovered by the police inside the bus. Were sitting. There was no evidence provided by the car prosecutor to show that the suspect knew the drugs involved in the car or that he had abused or conspired with the driver at the crime commission property. Nor was it open inside the car. The defendant's theory, nor did he know his whereabouts, so the accused did not even have to state his status as required under Article 122 of the 1984 evidence, And they could not be held responsible and in joint possession. In the driver prosecution case against the accused, the drugs were very suspicious and accordingly he was acquitted.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• GHULAM RASOOL PANWAR v. FIA 2010 PLC(CS) 836
• CAPTAIN PQ CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. v. Mrs. ROMANA AMJAD 2010 SCMR 837
• MUHAMMAD AMJAD v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (OPERATIONS), LAHORE 2010 PLC(CS) 838
• KHURSHID ALAM v. E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP 2010 PLC(CS) 840
• ANWAR-UL-HAQ v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD 2010 PLC(CS) 841
• ABID IQBAL HAFIZ v. SECRETARY; PUBLIC PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE 2010 PLD 841
• SALIM KHAN v. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR 2010 SCMR 844
• RIAZ AHMED v. State 2010 SCMR 846

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

tax advocates from Lodhran lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes