Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAMAS versus THE STATE

The Customs Act 1969 section 156 (1) (8) smuggling opium suspect was not identified, which shows that the accused managed to escape to the high hill which was on the spot which is suspected. Can be identified. And the prosecutor's testimony states that he was able to identify the suspects in which he was not a suspected and acceptable courier letter under which two opioid samples were recovered from the scene and the Chemical Examiner clearly states that Two unidentified smugglers were taken from two lots. Those who were shocked by the drugging party were trying to smuggle it across the border and, behind the question of drawing samples, resulted in being placed in the commandant's office instead of the customs warehouse and the office of the Chemical Examiner. I escaped after the final delivery. The required recovery memo was also not displayed and the date on which the aled sealed cover was transferred to the Chemical Examiner's office under the cover letter was not clear, in the presence of undisputed evidence securely It cannot be inferred that the sealed samples of smuggled goods, which the chemical inspector eventually examined, were the people who, in view of which the accused was expelled from the goods recovered from the accused, deserved the benefit of the doubt of the contradiction. And the sentence was set aside famous high court advocate from Mohmand lawyer