Article 185 (3) The appellant against the High Court had examined the evidence on record and dismissed the complainant's appeal after the case was attended to by all possible angles. The appellate court was cautious in dealing with the impugned order. Had to be sued because the accused had been acquitted. Took double advantage of innocence, one available to them before the end of the case, and the other if after the decision to acquit in their favor, if the appellate court decided to interfere with the verdict, strictly the principles contained therein. Should comply with. The complainant was denied accordingly as the impound order passed by the high court did not guarantee interference in the appeal / by the high courts for the guidance of the confiscated courts on this matter.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
