Find a Lawyer

FAROOQ-UR-REHMAN versus THE STATE

Prohibited (Order) Order 1979 Article Article 4 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Section 103 was suspected by the police to be in the possession of drugs at the service station with shops nearby which were open at the time of the search. There were. People belonging to the public were either asked to witness a recovery memo or no explanation was offered for non-compliance with section 103, when two recovery memos were made to the CCPC. And two FIRs were registered and when the defense alleged that the drugs were recovered. , Compliance with Section 103, CCP was most essential The evidence of the recovery was contradictory when no satisfactory explanation for the registration of the two cases was disclosed when the accused was taken to the same place under Article 3/4 of the order. The crime was committed. The testimony of the policemen thus lost their credibility, after a month the prohibited material was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Ulysses officer did not know where the samples were kept during that period, about which the samples were given, his testimony was not presented as a chemical inspector's report, therefore, it had no significance. No, the accused was acquitted. famous high court advocate from Shogram lawyer