Find a Lawyer

JUNNAT GUL versus THE STATE

Sections 202, 200 and 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC), the Prevention of Corruption Act (Second of 1947), Sections 5 (2) and 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), section 161/220/34 In this case, the identification was taken on a private complaint, the provisions of Criminal Code, Chapters XVI and XVII of 1898 were applicable Special Judge Anti-Corruption, therefore, exercising their jurisdiction properly, Section 200, Cr P.P. Under C, the complainant's statement was recorded and then duly ordered. The preliminary inquiry should be done by the Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment under CRPC, which was subsequently inspected by the Inspector, the Anti-Corruption Establishment Inspector, who was capable of conducting a preliminary investigation into the matter, such as preventing corruption. Was considered under Section 5A of the Act. Act, 1947 and Section 202, CR PC and, therefore, he properly reviewed the preliminary investigation and was able to submit a report providing for the prevention of Section 5A, C. There is nowhere mentioned in the Arbitration Act, 1947 that the accused, unlike a police officer junior, cannot make a preliminary inquiry / inquiry into the matter; presenting this report to the court, instead of sending it to the deputy director, is an anti-corruption establishment. Was not illegal at all, but it could be the most technical mistake and could not even be covered under Section 373737, CRPC because it did not prejudice the parties. Or in the event of a failure of justice to act only on satisfaction that an appellant once in such a case Or proceedings before the Revising Authority best advocate from Thari Mirwah lawyer