Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus THE STATE

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), the confession of the charges against the accused belonging to section 161, who was a concerned patwari, was illegal to give him a copy of the measles carriage. 500 was received on it. Under the cultivation of the complainant, the land has been complained that he gave the prosecutor's witness a currency note of Rs 500, which was the lambard of the concerned constituency, who forwarded the currency note to the accused and the complainant himself paid the accused. Didn't see the money moving. On the other hand, Lambardar had said that the tainted money was given to the accused by the complainant, not that such contradiction had transferred the tainted money to the accused as the complainant fully acknowledged that He did not take the defective currency note number. And in his interim inquiry, he admitted that the day before the raid he had left the currency note with the raiding magistrate and he had never come to court. On that day the magistrate was raided, which meant that the accused was not paid any bribe by Lumber because the defaulted currency note was not in the possession of the complainant or the lumber, but the raid was in the possession of the magistrate. The magistrate said he had not heard. Negotiations between the complainant and the accused at the time of payment of the money to the accused and they did not even see that by accepting the tainted money, the prosecution stressed from the accused that the tainted money was recovered from the accused as the recovery of the tainted money was merely a judicial one. There was no help in the action. The accused received the money in the absence of evidence when you need a advocate from Jaja Abasian lawyer