Find a Lawyer

GUL MUHAMMAD versus THE STATE

Prohibition (Enforcement of Head) Order 1979 Arts 3 and 4 Panel Code (XLV of 1860), prohibition of appreciation of Section 201 and 202 Evidence (Enforcement Head) Order, after its incorporation into Article 3 under Article 4 of 1979 Can be found guilty, under Article 4, both the punishment and punishment of the offenders under Article 4 (Enforcement of Limitation) Order, 1979 was subsequently set aside till now in Article 3 of the said order. The trial court did not clearly identify the conviction under the terms of the offense, a term in which the act of the accused could be considered a crime. Was treated as anspurtr or export heroin career he was traveling in the truck, but the idea could not be proved. Neither the truck owner who had the hidden heroin nor the owner of the heroin, but he did not deny his trip with the fugitive suspect recovered 40 kilos of GS heroin from the truck-recovered heroin. Time was exclusively under the control of the owner / driver of the truck and only the fugitive suspect could treat the carrier with the transporter and not the prohibition which was his felony and Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Head) Order, 1979. The conviction of the accused was also set aside, however, the accused knew of carrying heroin and was not traveling in the truck. He was well aware of the actual culprits and their role in the base but saved them by not giving accurate information about the particular accused, with whom they found the accused guilty under Sections 5 & 202. Was sentenced and sentenced accordingly. law firms from Doaaba lawyer