Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), documents documented on the Definition Record of Section 161 evidence proved that an inbuilt mechanism involved unlawful practices of low-paid staff. And was alleged to have accepted the receipt of the money. Initially and he claimed corruption that should go to the investigating officer and should be considered, but he failed to do so, but the investigating officer was obliged to collect instructions and the senior officer / competent authority. In order to issue a license in the investigation. To determine to what extent the accused could be held to be involved in the illegal process of soliciting trespass, but the investigating officer did not do so Gave the winning statement and said there was nothing. The accused recovered the person and the money from the adjoining room in the adjoining room of the accused's office and not the room where the accused was sitting, the prosecution failed to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, Particularly when it was requested: From the outset, through the accused that he has received the disputed amount, the licensee fee from the complainant which may be a reasonable possibility is for the litigation to be litigated. The prosecution's prosecution found unnatural contradictions and weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence, Doubt had to be taken advantage of. Go to the accused and he was entitled to acquit the offender and the accused was punished and divorce advocates from Kotli Loharan lawyer