Sections 9, 10, 18 (g) and 24 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898) Articles 265C and 537, reduction of cases of misappropriation of powers by offenders who were directors of the Legislative Corporation and not of embezzlement. Even though the prosecutor did not try to prove any particular amount of money that was allegedly inflicted by the accused, sufficient evidence was provided to indicate that the director was misappropriating the powers as a result of the accused. According to the prosecution's version, a large amount of money was wasted. The main culprit in this case was three, of whom one died, but the alleged role of the other accused / directors also showed that there was no prejudice to the defense, even if some were found to be accused of stopping. Copies of the reference were provided to The accused under Section 6565C, CCPC, so that all the accused facing trial have a clear picture of the allegations and did not disclose the allegations / defects, such wrongdoing or wrongfully failed justice. Was. Under Section 373737, the allegation about the time and date of the crime was merely a remedy for a mistake / duty, the PC objected to an error / defect in the allegation and should be raised in the first phase of the trial. And had no justification. He was accused of raising objections for the first time, in these circumstances he was sentenced appropriately, but sentenced to 14 years imprisonment / two accused \ RI third accused who was sentenced to 7 years RI and Rs 20 fine. His fine was fixed for one year and the sentence was imposed on him for a year.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
