Find a Lawyer

MANZOOR AHMAD versus STATE

In view of the value of Section 9 (c) Drug Control (Governmental Analysts) Rules, 2001, R4 evidence, witnesses made permanent statements about the receipt of confidential information, identified by the informant , From where the suspect was arrested. The reasoning of the prohibited charset and the date and time of his arrest to the police was trivial and trivial in nature, which did not reduce the value charged by the defendant in connection with his false implications in this case and no ring of truth. Did not appear. The complainant and other police officers for non-compliance with section 103 had no reason to ban the accused person in large quantities; the CRPC was misunderstood because it was special. Control of narcotic substances was excluded by section 25. The Act, 1997, by its plea in drug matters, even otherwise, the public was reluctant to take part in such cases after a period of 72 hours to avoid serious rehabilitation proceedings and abuses. The Chemical Examiner's Office sample forfeiture was not void for analysis, because it was a directory of the Narcotic Substances Control Regulation 4, Government 2001 and was not mandatory and, therefore, the Narcotic Substances Act of 1997 Important provisions cannot be overcome, nor can the purpose of this Act be discouraged. He was. Either way, the Act does not invalidate the search, seizure, or arrest, and does not make the whole case of the prosecution suspicious, the uncontested testimony of the two witnesses has proved that famous lower court advocate from Nilore lawyer