Find a Lawyer

REHMANUDDIN versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), section 161 evidenced. It was stated monthly that the five officers were released for no reason, leaving them on charges of similar nature, the benefit could be given to the accused complainant who stated in his evidence that He paid the tainted money in the presence of the prosecution witnesses but did not know if any counsel was prepared or if the complainant had also dismissed that no proceedings were registered in his premises. Went to where the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the tainted money was unknown, he did not know that the police adviser Obtaining the signature or not. Mashiyama; that the raiding party was standing outside the party when he (the complainant) entered the bank to hand over the money to the accused and no one heard the conversation between them. And that no one in this place (the bank) was presented either as a witness nor investigated in this case, as well as a witness for the prosecution as a consultant. Was not supported by the prosecution's case and, thus, was declared admissible, the other witness of the prosecution opposed the complainant on the recovery. The fraudulent money was obtained when the complainant raided the party, according to the complainant raiding party, while he was in his own hand, according to the prosecution witness, the accused had received money from the prosecution's pocket, in the circumstances, to prove his case against the accused. I was unsuccessful giving the benefit of the doubt to the shadow of any doubt, and was acquitted tax advocates from Alipur lawyer