Find a Lawyer

ASFANDIYAR versus STATE

The suspicion of benefit of the arrest of intoxicants of Section 9 (C) Customs staff investigating officer did not deal with every packet of drugs. And they did this by mixing all the drugs they had available and making three samples. And only a very small amount of the report was sent to the Chemical Examiner. Only 10 grams of a sample of 125 300kg were sent, where there were two versions and the defense-compliant version was possible, the courts were always inclined. The defense version of the prosecution was only suspicious of the extent of the presence of the accused and to the extent that the secret cows were aware of it or not, but the suspect was taken advantage of by the suspect and sentenced to the accused. Was set and set at liberty \ r \ n

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010

• SHER AFZAL v. State 2010 YLR 549
• IZZAT KHAN v. MUHAMMAD IQBAL 2010 PCrLJ 558
• NASEEB KHAN v. State 2010 YLR 561
• RAFIQ v. State 2010 PCrLJ 567
• Mst. NAJIA TEHSEEN v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Services and General Administration Department, Peshawar 2010 PLC(CS) 581
• Syed KAMAL SHAH v. MUHAMMAD KHATEEB 2010 YLR 593
• REHMAN GHANI v. SHAHZAD KHAN 2010 CLC 610
• KHAILI JAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 613

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2010 →

top advocates from Phagwar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes