AMJAD NAEEM versus THE STATE
Photostat copies of the Prevention of Corruption Act (19 of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5 (2) of the value of evidence were obtained in the evidence of the prosecution even though the original case of the document. The hearing was not produced before the trial court. The inspection of the fact that the defense did not object to the said documents was irrelevant as the consent of the parties could not affect the express provisions of the evidence regarding the evidence of the documents, the trial court said in the photos. Acquired and depended on the operation illegally. Copies of documents that were not admissible in evidence were alleged, dismissed on the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Mirpur (AJK) lawyer
