Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AMIN versus STATE

The testimony of Section 9 (c) and 25 of the evidence, the large quantity of marijuana by the police, the reduction of the recovery of five KGS, was not denied by the accused, for which he was accused of false interference in the case. No progress was made by the accused. Neither the police nor the prosecution's testimony was suggested to the police; there is no doubt that the recovery witness and the investigating officer were police personnel, but at the time of the recovery, it was not mandatory to share public witnesses, in drug cases, As they were assigned along the way. Under the Control of the Narcotic Sub Maintenance Act, 1997, there was no material contradiction in the statements of recovery witnesses, alleging that the defendant's defense alleges that the person belonging to the other person was not well established. The police had no reason to release the original suspect. And the current accused involved in a false case was the chemical tester's report, in positive prosecution, was able to prosecute the accused in the circumstances, accusing 5 kilograms of marijuana, under the circumstances of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act of 1997. Helott was convicted under Section 9 (C), however, the accused was a ten-year asthma sufferer. While abolishing justice instead of 14 years \ RI while maintaining the conviction of the accused, the sentence of 14 years imprisonment \ RI was reduced to 10 years \ RI and the penalty was also reduced to Rs 50,000 from the same lakh. ly r \ n \ r. n top advocates from Chilas lawyer