Find a Lawyer

LAL MUHAMMAD ALIAS HAJI LALOO versus STATE

Sections 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Code (v. 1898), value of section 103 evidence c) of the Control of the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was raised by the accused that the Chemical Examiner kept only 20 grams of hash consideration, therefore, the accused's case came under Section 9 (a) of the control. The defendant of the Narcotic Substance Act, 1997 further pleaded that no witnesses from the public were involved in the retrieval process; for the instance of the accused, reserving large quantities of marijuana was not required to be sent to the Chemical Examiner. The sample and its positive report were sufficient for the entire recovery as no material was taken on the prosecution's witnesses in the cross examination for a long time in the procession to prove that the prosecution's witnesses were against the accused. There was some kind of hostility to the false witnesses to prosecute the police Evidence of being an officer cannot also be excluded from consideration under Section 25 of the drug articles, because the provisions of this law of the law were quite different in nature from the provisions of section 103, the testimony of CCP accused prosecutors. I failed to identify any material contradictions so as to benefit them so that the minor or minor contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutor's witnesses were not sufficient to reflect them, other than that, due to substantial intervals, The trial court rightly informed the evidence previously recorded on the record and decided its decision Face any illegal, irregular, misrepresentative or unreadable evidence on record famous supreme court advocate from Dhirkot lawyer