Find a Lawyer

SHAHID SHAHZAD versus STATE

The testimony of Sections 9 (c) and 25 of the testimony all the witnesses gave the same details of the incident and since all the colors of truth were given in their statements, there was no reason for the record to refute their testimony. Evidence of this was confirmed by a chemical analyst. In this report, which showed that the samples were charset and opium, all the lawyers were examined by the defense lawyer, but they could not find any material contradiction in their evidence. All the witnesses were prominent features and material aspects of the case. And they supported it. The delay in filing an FIR in the case of litigation was explained that the recovery of the narcotics was made in accordance with Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and that the provisions of the special law were special. As the section 103 petition was dismissed, the CRPC prosecution was able to prove its case for the reasons leading to the trial and the trial, showing a fair review of the evidence from the vehicle in question. A large quantity of prohibited material was recovered. It seems that the accused has been treated fairly. There was no illegality or weakness in the unanimous decision of this Court. immigration advocate from Jhand lawyer