Find a Lawyer

GHULAM HAIDER versus THE STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), the definition of evidence in section 161 in their statement did not accept the defense's request which they accepted at trial and the same. Even after it was considered, the trial court denied that otherwise, being a member of the accused disciplinary force, a man in uniform, it was not expected that it would be quietly Why is the money being withdrawn why it is being offered that the changed hands of the police station, the raiding magistrate can neither hear the conversation nor the reality. Money transfer can see and can not hear the conversation. And the non-testimony of the transfer of money by the raiding party was not fatal in the prosecution's case and could not convict the accused himself. According to him, the probability of being retained would be to lose his job because of his sentence and if he was sent back to prison six years after his suspension, he could lose his current source of livelihood as well. The prison sentence of the accused was also reduced. Undergoing it already best advocate from Mardan lawyer