Find a Lawyer

AURANGZEB versus THE STATE

Testimony of Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 The testimony of the prosecutor was not present when the accused allegedly deprived the complainant of cash and drugs, clear contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution to eliminate the complainant's authenticity. Was enough for him and he eliminated it too. The root cause of the prosecutor's case could not afford a valid basis to prove the complainant's delay in reporting the matter without the independent mutual support of the complainant, and the significance of the issue was bare and patent registered. The result was that the legal verdict was not only unusual, but also full of illegal proceedings, the accused was acquitted under the circumstances. best law firms from Sakrand lawyer