Find a Lawyer

ABU BAKAR versus STATE

Section 9 (b) criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), section 573 conviction of evidence, did not deny arrest of the accused on the day of the reduction, the accused in connection with his arrest because of enmity with the police. Was taken by The refusal to pay the demanded money was not proved by any strong evidence, the proposals presented by the accused to the witnesses of the accused were denied by him, besides the complainant, two other police officers. , Who was investigated as a prosecution witness, had the full support of each other, against whom no security motive was established after the arrest of the accused in this case. No officer below grade level could fail the trial, which is an irrevocable remedy under section 373737, c. The PC suspect was arrested in the evening. During the routine patrol, a search warrant could have been obtained by the police party, the complainant's delay in sending a sample to the chemical laboratory. f It does not matter because the prosecution's witnesses on the case property were not tampered with or their sample was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, nor did they dispute that the case. I am born real estate. The court was not the same as it was recovered, but in the circumstances the conviction was upheld, but since he was the first offender and recovered only 150 grams of hashish, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Reduced prisoner has already gone through this. \ R \ n \ r \ n online advocate from Kotla Pathan lawyer