Find a Lawyer

ABDUL WAHAB versus STATE

Section (c) Detection of drug recovery evidence Suspected benefit of a truck identified 80 kilograms of marijuana in a truck Three witnesses of witnesses said there were only four suspects at the time of the raid and no one knew the eight suspects. At the time of or before the prosecution's testimony, the prosecution's evidence on such a case was muted and no witnesses elaborated on how he could identify the suspect or the impact of the source of the identification. They did not know or meet the suspect before the raid, but the accused was a stranger to the informant / witnesses. The detective was not present at the time of the raid, which alleged that the truck was recovered, was not in working condition and there was no evidence to link the suspect to the truck in any way. I failed and the High Court set aside the sentencing sentence and the sentence. The trial court and the accused were acquitted of the charges.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• MUHAMMAD IMRAN ASLAM v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KHUSHAB 2014 PCrLJ 162
• Haji SIKANDAR v. HOME SECRETARY 2014 PLD 163
• Mst. FARRAH NAZ v. Rana MEHBOOB KHAN 2014 CLC 167
• SNGPL v. OGRA 2014 PLD 167
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ v. State 2014 MLD 171
• RASHID ALI v. SECRETARY INDUSTRIES 2014 PLD 173
• Mst. AASIYA BIBI v. HABIB BANK LIMITED 2014 CLD 176
• FAQIR MUHAMMAD v. MUHAMMAD SHAKIL 2014 PLD 177

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

how to become a advocate from Ambela lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes