Find a Lawyer

IBRAHIM SHAH BUKHARI versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Section XLV of 1860), Section 161 An Associate Professor was appointed as the Superintendent in the Examination Hall to oversee the examination. Some money was requested from the recipient illegally for pleasure. There was a candidate and, copying the prosecution case, it was found that the accused had withdrawn some money from the candidate's pocket in the examination hall and warned him that he would pay the balance amount on the next date, some contradiction in the case against the accused. Which could not be reconciled and who filed a case against the accused in a highly suspected case, as he was not in a position to blackmail the alleged complainant / candidate and bribe as a reply book. After closing the cell was sent to the relevant education board, do not stay by the accused for three days Could have been, so the possibility of a conspiratorial conspiracy against the accused, thus, the error of the fraudulent money could not be relieved of the suspected fraudulent money was not specifically marked by the raiding magistrate who The same case was termed very dubious and many other contradictions were found in the surrender of the money as well as its recovery. In the presence of hundreds of other candidates, the complainant did not appeal and demand the receipt of money by the accused within the examination hall; the prosecutor's case should not be free of many doubts, the sentence passed by the trial court against the accused and The sentence was set aside and the accused was acquitted, giving him the benefit of the doubt top advocate from Nankana Sahib lawyer