MUHAMMAD RAFIQ versus THE STATE
Articles 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), section 5 (2), defining the evidence mostly after assuming charge of his post and not appearing at the relevant time after the incident. , Because its oral evidence was evidence of a hearing, it was unacceptable that the best relevant evidence on this subject was withheld for the reasons best known by the prosecution, and a presumption under the law is substantially limited. Could have been pulled in which it was not supported if it was recorded. Prosecutor's Case The prosecution's witnesses either did not fully support the prosecution's case against the accused or their evidence did not prove their conviction as defective in many cases.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
jobs for advocates from Arifwala lawyer
