Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAMEEL versus STATE

Prohibited Order 1979 Article Article 3 Verification of evidence was about a mile and a half to the raiding party when the informant told them that a man was selling heroin in front of his mother's house, neither had the details of the accused nor The number was given by the raiding party through the informant, no witness of the prosecution could give the house number at the trial, no one outside the house was able to write the memo on the spot. Light was not available, evidence for preparation of memo was highly contradictory Site plan number did not show house where accused Was caught with heroin, but also showed the wrong number of blocks when four grams of heroin contained in a khaki paper was recovered at the time of arrest, which was unnatural, because if the accused was heroin. He was usually standing when he was selling. The same heroin in a single gram packet was recovered from the suspects in the early hours of every 5 Her 1985, but the parcels were given to the constable in the Chemical Examiner's office on 15 15 1985 without any explanation as to where the parcel was in the meantime. Were kept, action was being taken, they were either fictitious or were put in danger which led to suspicion of the accused and the recovery of heroin from the accused. It does not prove that the accused was acquitted in the circumstances ask a advocate free from Sahiwal lawyer