THE STATE/ANTI NARCOTICS FORCE versus MEHBOOB UR REHMAN AFRIDI
Sections 12, 13, 48 and 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) prohibited the acquisition and possession of narcotic drugs; the special court of the United Kingdom recorded the evidence of the parties. And the trial is over. Prosecutors have filed an appeal against Brett for dismissing the defendant's claim of acquittal for allegedly seizing property acquired by drug offenders and appearing to be a drug dealer. Is the first and most important factor in justifying the facts. In addition to the prosecution of the accused and his property, there was no record of any business or business case involving the accused in this case, only in the investigation or trial of any case under the Narcotic Substitute Act 1997. Could not be proved. The drug dealer and the property proceed as a crime so as to attract the provisions of the law applicable to the case. After the arrest of the accused, the prosecution should have investigated the property along with the crime, his Also, after his arrest he was charged and the trial and trial of the same should affect the recovery of the drug and claim under Rule 12 and 13. Was. The Drugs Goods Act, 1997 should have been jointly charged with the possession and recovery charges of intoxicants, after which the collected material should be kept in conjunction with the trial court along with the charge sheet. Which was not made by the prosecution. Argued and e
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
