Find a Lawyer

MUBARAK DIN versus STATE

Section 497 and 103 of the Control of the Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Section 9 guarantees, despite prior information, had no power to argue with regard to the non-participation of private witnesses, because Section 103, CR PC Source was excluded. The same principle would not apply to the inclusion of an informant in the Drugs Act, 1997, because people may present information on spies, but dare to cite as witnesses against drug dealers in connection with the raids, recovery and preliminary proceedings. Could not The arrest by A Section I would not carry much weight, though it was required that the legally authorized officer should be raided on appropriate notice, indicating the presence of the accused in front of the alleged shop as well as prohibiting the sale of drugs. Not to mention the shop in the client site plan; the failure to develop a site plan instead of a research officer. And the failure to recover the amount and scale and weight of the proceeds from the sale for the purpose of retailing marijuana, the FIR in the investigation process alleged that three slabs of chars were found and 5 grams for the chemicals. Has been sampled. The analysis was obtained from each of the slabs and a total of 15 grams containing 3 samples were sent to the Franzik Science Laboratory, while it was said that the laboratory received only 5 grams of drugs containing 3 samples, which would mean Only 1 kg of hashish was recovered. The culprit can be released from the gravity of the crime, under the circumstances, to the extent of a temporary diagnosis at the bail stage, depending on the sentence imposed on the accused at the end of the case. Guarantee Mills jobs for advocates from Qalandarabad lawyer