Find a Lawyer

UMERTIAZ KHAN versus STATE

The definition of Articles 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), Section 103 Proof Chars, in the present case was not hidden in a bus cavity, rather it was in a bag owned by the accused persons. Under the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act, 1997, section 103, the CCP was not applicable in drug cases listed under the aforementioned act, unless otherwise enforced by law enforcement agencies until the last hours regarding recovery and operation. Had to be kept Raid on a particular place. And if such precautionary measures were not taken and the secret information about concealing or operating the drugs, etc. could be raided there, but without success, in the meantime the accused persons would not be allowed to carry the drug. And be able to move. Usually the residents of the locality were reluctant to become a witness of the recovery memo which left the investigating officer with no choice but to comply with Section 103 for taking the witnesses to the police. Cannot be considered a strong field for holding. In the eyes of the law, it was bad to prosecute the accused. In the present case, 200 grams of marijuana was separated from each slab as a sample and sealed separately, while the remaining 4800 grams were sealed separately. There was no doubt that the marijuana councilor, out of the entire 6 slabs seized, had not been satisfied by the court that the delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner was delayed. Nor was there any hostility expressed between the accused persons and the prosecution's evidence of the allegations made by the prosecution. immigration advocates contact from Jampur lawyer