Find a Lawyer

ERAN GUL versus STATE

Section 9 (c) testimony of the defendant was traveling in a vehicle driven by the accused and the evidence of the prosecution did not indicate whether he was a passenger in the vehicle, the prosecution's evidence about the vicious liability of the accused. Whether I was silent or intended to conceal intoxicating substances in the vehicle in question, the co-accused had no control of the vehicle from which such drug paraphernalia was recovered. Nothing is on record. It is likely that the co-accused had joint intentions with his co-accused who is in custody. The prosecutor offering drugs or any kind of assistance in this regard was not able to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt against the co-accused, in the case of a suspect against the co-accused, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Went and was released, under conditions

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• Syed TARIQ MAHMOOD v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs Division) 2009 YLR 636
• MUHAMMAD FAHEEM FAZLI v. State 2009 PLD 638
• MANSABDAR v. State 2009 MLD 641
• Dr. ZIA-UR-REHMAN KHAN v. Dr. ATIQ-UR-RAHMAN KHAN 2009 PLD 641
• ANWAR BAIG v. State 2009 YLR 648
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, LAHORE 2009 PLC(CS) 648
• AKHTER ALI v. ANJUMAN-E-ANSAR AHLE BAIT (Regd.) through President 2009 MLD 653
• MUHAMMAD ZAFAR v. State 2009 PCrLJ 656

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

list of supreme court advocates from Mingora lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes