Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NASIM BUTT versus STATE

Prohibited (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 1979 Article 4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 Recovery of heroin from an accused confessed to possession of heavy narcotics by an accused; arrest of prosecution witnesses and removal of integrity The help effect offered by an officer by an officer is due to the fact that two advisers have described being released, do not support prosecution and the fact that a large number of heroin have been recovered. For prosecution witnesses, many others, including prosecution witnesses, are at great risk for offenders and felonies. Such matters can still be considered as a material substance as long as the evidence of the prosecutor is relevant to victory over the witnesses. Appropriate indications of the attempt, including that of the officer, helped one of the accused escape even if the statement of the accused (applicant) presented to witnesses during the raid was reported to the police. Accepted as a confessional statement, though it would have been treated unfairly, and it would also have been excluded from consideration. Called, was enough proof of this. The record is that the applicant was not the only carrier petitioner's version in defense suffered an accident, while he was driving his car, which was not acceptable with the personnel vehicle (which recovered heroin). The petitioner's request for a relaxation in sentence could not be accepted because he did not come. With the whole fact if he was exactly the carrier as he claimed it was, no justification for intervention has been granted, leave to appeal denied. famous lower court advocate from Shangla lawyer