Section 409 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the allegations against the accused was that he was in charge of the wheat procurement center; he resorted to illegal sources of wheat seeds by using illegal means. Was mistreated and fined under section 409 and under. Under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, no letter relating to the appointment of the accused as a charge center was legally brought on record by the prosecution, the available evidence on the record to conclude It was not enough that the accused had committed the crime against him. Where accusation against the accused is a breach of criminal trust, the prosecution will not only have to prove possession of the property or domain, but it will also be charged that the accused has illegally misappropriated the property, Altered, used, or disposed of, or had intentionally encountered another person. To do this, the prosecution must prove with conviction that the components of the criminal prosecution are inadequate to establish their case against the accused, even in the same nature, suspicion and the evidence of the prosecution for the conviction of the accused cannot be relied upon. Was. The benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused and he was sentenced by the trial court and declared guilty. The charges against him were acquitted
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
