Find a Lawyer

ABID LATIF versus STATE

Sections 33 (2), 48 and 74 of the appellant's physical possession of the accused in the vehicle were found to be physical possession of the intoxicants and were being driven by the appellant's brother. Appellant's vehicle could not be legally seized when the drug was recovered from the suspect's physical possession, as the vehicle was not being used to transport the recovered drugs, not to seize the vehicle. Not only was it unnecessary but also unnecessary, under the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, under the jurisdiction of the Appeal of Trial Appeal, the dismissal of the Appellant's request for superannuation of the High Court was not justified. , An order approved by the trial court, and an application submitted by the appellant Ryah presented. The accepted High Court directed the trial court to issue an appropriate order for the issuance of a vehicle on S. Appellant's appellation was allowed under the circumstances \ r \ n solicitors from Lakimarwat lawyer