Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ANWAR versus STATE

Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), section 5 (2) were charged with defining the evidence of the allegations that he had obtained illegal restitution. Changing the use of it as a public record to exclude forged documents from the Revenue Record and none of the three allegations was justified without reasonable doubt. Who was the co-accused in the constituency, he was acquitted by the trial court and his release was not challenged by either the prosecutor or the complaining party; No time or place was mentioned, no witness was presented by the complainant and it was stated that during the investigation of the matter no money was ever recovered from the possession of the accused, the accused was illegally released. The accusation of recovery, which was later, was not proved by independent evidence; there was no independent evidence available on record. For everyone that it was the accused who has never been any real change has been deleted from the record. No witness was presented by the prosecution to claim that he saw the accused remove any such document from the Revenue Record or to prove that it was any of the accused himself. Could not delete Such accusation against the accused was based on speculation and speculation that had no place in the law. None of the witnesses claimed before the trial court that it was the accused itself who had falsified the relevant changes and the accused property advocate from Phool nagar lawyer