Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 420 law testimony 1984 (10 of 1984), article 132 included the chief of examinations, cross examination and FE examination in the testimony of witnesses. In this case, the conviction of the accused can be relied upon to record, in which the testimony of a lawful Scrotony incident was more important than the examination in the chief ocular account, reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant has not received the attention of the trial court; the evidence given by the complainant cannot be considered sufficient to guarantee the conviction of the accused in any way, especially when it is seen that The prosecution's case was that the defendant, who had recovered 100 rupees currency notes from his possession, received money in the form of illegal pleasures, which was handed over to him by the PD section P, who was the charge officer in charge. The trap was arranged under the supervision of the trial, before its expiration before the trial court found no evidence in the case. Could the reason. The prosecution failed to prove the accused under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, only to prove the mesh of the net was not enough for the prosecution, but the prosecution's story All the important parts of must prove. Depending on the trap event
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
