Find a Lawyer

TAJ MAI versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Defining Evidence Complainant, who was the star witness of the prosecution, and other prosecution witnesses who were allegedly the complainant and his The first meeting between the two was witness. Where the accused, who allegedly demanded money from the complainant, was not presented by the prosecution, the non-appearance of both witnesses at the time of trial by the prosecution was fatal, the accused testified. It was not safe to believe this statement, without the assistance of any other independent prosecutor, who was absent in this case, the raiding magistrate did not say in his statement that he had The complainant has seen the accused paying the money or has heard that he has no evidence in the record Was. To show that any of the prosecution witnesses witnessed the transfer of the fraudulent money recovered to the accused, the recovery of the money from the complainant alone was not sufficient that the accused prosecution surpassed any reasonable doubt against the accused. The case failed miserably, the trial sentenced the accused and the sentence was set aside and the accused acquitted. Of charge law websites from Qambar lawyer