Find a Lawyer

WASIUDDIN KHAWAR versus THE STATE

Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 Article Article 4 The recovery of the heroin leader was declared false by the party and it was directed to give some duty other than the raid operation, a prosecution witness dismissed that the accused was deposed for heroin. Was not recovered and was honored while another prosecutor testified that he was under the influence of a raiding party leader who was signing a heroin recovery memo and members of the raiding party. Also, the report under section 17373 was not presented as a prosecution witness, the CCP statement said Wahs was not recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161, CRPC, and was simply told by his explanation for the error that no such action had taken place, which resulted in the witnesses having their first The statements were unable to contradict the witnesses and the defendant was subjected to prejudice. Without obtaining a search warrant, no respectable person from the locality was added, although enough NTTime was present with the raiding officer and the suspects' houses were surrounded by shops that were open at that time. When the raids were carried out, the local excise department of the excise department consisted of a raiding officer, who was an assistant excise and taxation officer. The officer's testimony was not reliable. The heroin was recovered from the suspect's home, which was not a public place, and the raiding officer was not authorized to investigate the matter without the permission of the magistrate's hold. Was taken advantage of. In the circumstances the sentence was set aside family advocate from Kachhi/Bolan lawyer