Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus STATE

Sections 9 (c) and 25 Prohibition (Enforcement Hadith) Order (4 of 1979), Arts 3/4 conviction of evidence appreciation, reduction of marijuana and opiate recovery was proven by prosecution by the CIA. I was stationed. The staff at the relevant location and said the prosecution witness was retrieved by another recovered witness. No dent was found in the evidence regarding the defense, it was said that the prosecution's witnesses were presented to the court in the prosecution case, in which the Chemical Examiner's reports were properly sealed. The evidence presented was positive. The defendants did not provide any evidence in support of their plea that he had been falsely implicated in the case by the Investigation Officer, who, after considerable prosperity by the person, harassed one of the accused persons. Was. The complainant's complaint that the investigating officer did not associate a private person with the recovery process was sustainable because Section 25 of the Narcotic Material Control Act 1997 rescinded the private person's association in drug prosecution recovery cases. In the circumstances, the case against the suspects was successful beyond the shadow of a doubt. The marijuana and one kilo opiate were allegedly found to be drug paraphernalia and opioid, while verifying the crime, the appeals filed by the accused were partially allowed, each accused being sentenced to 10 years in prison. Was done The I RI penalty was retained, however, \ r \ n list of advocates from Mari Indus lawyer