Find a Lawyer

WAHEED GUL versus STATE

Appreciating the evidence of Section 9 (c) drug possession, the accused was driving the car, of which sixty kilograms of hashish was recovered and was reported to have owned the vehicle. The context was irrelevant The prosecution had excluded its initial burden by proving possession of the accused's marijuana, which failed to reject as required under section 29 of the Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, and kept the accused guilty. had gone.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUSARAT BANO v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 2010 MLD 1656
• RIAZ AHMED v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 2010 YLR 1657
• Mian ABDUL JABBAR v. LATIF SHAH 2010 CLC 1660
• RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY, SECTOR G-13, ISLAMABAD v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES\' HOUSING FOUNDATION 2010 CLC 1663
• MUMTAZ ALI v. F. G. E. H. F 2010 MLD 1665
• KAMRAN HANIF v. BILQEES BANO 2010 YLR 1665
• ARSHAD MAHMOOD v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1668
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE v. State 2010 YLR 1672

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

best law firms from Bhalwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes