Find a Lawyer

KHURAM SHAHZAD versus STATE

The 497 Control of the Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), in Section 6, 9, 25 and 51 bail, allegedly resulted in the possession of 3 5kg of opium powder by the complainant and other officers. 50 grams of chemical was separated and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, stating that the sample sent for the analysis was tested positive for opiate and alkaloid, in keeping with the Chemical Examiner's report. Also, the quantity of drugs has been recovered. The accused, it can be safely asserted, that the crime has attracted the provisions of Articles 6 and 9 of the Anti-Drug Enforcement Act 1997, Section 103, intoxication under Rule 25 of the CRPC under Rule 25. Applicable matters were excluded from the application. As such, non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103, CRPC, thus, cannot be considered an appropriate place to extend concessions. The defendant's bail was not able to provide any legal justification for possession of such a large quantity of drugs; full power in the case of bar in Section 51 of the Narcotic Material Act, 1997, for Bargain's approval. Was attracted by After the arrest, the bail cannot be extended to the accused, as there was sufficient confusing material on the record to carry out the charges. best advocate from Hangu lawyer