Find a Lawyer

RASHID KHAN versus STATE

The complainant's testimony affected the trust by examining the evidence in section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which was not unusual for the accused or falsely implicated in a case by false religion. It was claimed that the complainant's testimony was not denied. The accused who was acquitted of the accused could not be believed, he was subjected to misunderstanding because the said accused was not based on the testimony of the complainant, but on the basis that he had cash recovered from the accused's house. There was no money to pay. Even otherwise, the Maximum Falls at Anno Falls in Omnibus no longer occupied the field, which was replaced by another rational method of scrutiny of evidence, which was to separate the grain from the hunger cha. The testimony against the accused was largely self-made. The admission of collection of cash from his home, which not only made the recovery disputable but also sufficient to avoid self-punishment, did not prove that Metricel did not prove that he was objectionable. The cash belongs to the accused's brother. It is alleged that he is a civil servant and was taking a modest salary, failing to provide satisfactory explanation for recovering huge sums from his house. And he was guilty of a criminal offense. Corruption appeal under section 5 (1) of the Corruption Prevention Act, 1947, was dismissed accordingly. criminal advocate from Pasroor lawyer