Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAZIR versus STATE

The Criminal Criminal Code (v. 1898) of the Criminal Code, the defendant who was found guilty of section 103 evidence was searched, but nothing was recovered from the man. The policeman searched the vehicle, which was operating the suspect and was found in a plastic bag. One bag was recovered containing 27 grams of heroin 18 grams and 9 grams. The incident occurred at the bus stand, under the driver's seat cover, on the same day, a 40-hour FIR was filed on the same day, with the accused on the spot complaining to the complainant (Assistant Sub Inspector Police) and the prosecution witness. Was arrested, the (Head Constable of Police) fully supported the case and their fourth length was examined but no material was brought on record to deny their evidence, the accused said. The witnesses did not show any hostility in their statement under section 342; no advice was given by the CRPC. During cross-examination of the two witnesses it was alleged by the accused that there was a dispute between the accused and the complainant public officials, the name of the defense witness was neither stated under Section 2342, CRPC nor In the statement under section 4040 ((?), CRPC), the accused traveled in the wagon of the accused during the trial and never requested the chemical examiner to be examined by the court. Examiner found - Because of this seat, survivors were acquitted of intoxicants which were fully aware of the provisions of section 103, RPC will not attract any such witness by the police officers that they will not be disqualified for the prosecution, the accused guilty divorce advocates from Khairpur Nathan Shah lawyer