Find a Lawyer

BADSHA KHAN versus THE STATE

Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 Arts 3S4 Testimony of evidence Reid alleges that a witness standing on the purchase of fifty rupees from an accused outside his home and further investigation led the raiding party to his residence. A sack containing one kilogram of hashish was recovered from the house, samples of ten grams from each of them were taken and the entire goods were locked in separate parcels which were handed over to the police inspector. There is no evidence in the record that Recovering the accused was a drug to show that he was accused of prosecuting for the crime because he failed to produce a pernicious witness without giving any reason. The defendant failed to mention that he had purchased marijuana from prosecution witnesses who were given a currency note (Rs. 50). Whether the disturbing witness had an identification mark or his number was noted to indicate that it was the currency that was given by the prosecutor for the purpose of purchasing the said quantity of the raiding party chief, Chas police inspector. It was not stated that he had recovered the goods and sent it in safe custody or to a chemical analyst for analysis. It was certified that the said material had reached the Office of the Chemical Analyst and that the case was registered in 1983 and the trial court decided in 1987 without giving the reasons for the delay, although all the prosecution witnesses were either excise department. Or the police were accused of not being aware of the case. The chemical analyst's report, if a lawsuit has been tried, will address these issues advocates from Khanewal lawyer