Find a Lawyer

GUL ZAMAN versus STATE

In section 9 (c) and 25 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), the value of Section 103 drug recovery evidence was presented by the accused as a life imprisonment. The fact that the person was not called to testify for recovery was a fact that the witnesses belonging to the police had no room to exclude their evidence. It cannot be ruled out that he was a policeman. Under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Materials Stances Act 1997, the exclusion of public witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the CRPC was dismissed. His plea in the drug prosecutor's case for Chars' recovery was successful and it was concluded and the reasons given by the trial show that the fair evaluation of the evidence led to the High Court's decision to warrant interference. No illegal or vulnerable types were found.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUHAMMAD RAZZAK v. State 2014 PCrLJ 655
• IGI INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED v. ADMORE GAS (PVT.) LTD. 2014 CLD 658
• ABDUL MALIK v. State 2014 YLR 660
• PAK AFGHAN CARGO SERVICE (PVT.) LTD. v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 2014 PTD 661
• SHAHBAN BHERI v. State 2014 MLD 663
• HUSSAIN BUX v. State 2014 YLR 665
• FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD. v. Major (R) SHAMSHAD ALI KHAN 2014 CLC 669
• DHANI BUX v. SIKANDAR 2014 MLD 673

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

famous supreme court advocate from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes