Find a Lawyer

AMER CHAND versus STATE

All witnesses to the prosecution's testimony of Section 9 & BB & C 489C of the clause had full support for the prosecution's story. The prosecution's witnesses had fully agreed on all important aspects of the case and had successfully met with the investigation, no significant contradiction or error was found in the prosecution's evidence. To suggest that the recovery did not take effect in such a manner as the prosecution's witnesses stated that the contradictions stated by the accused were neither material nor any consequence nor would the defendant have any bad guarantees. And the prosecution's evidence was very convincing and the witnesses have no clue, rivalry, molestation or molestation to falsely implicate the accused in the recovery of fake currency, no doubt police officials Saw, but he was a good witness as a private and had no legal restriction to be a witness to the rehabilitation. Some kind of financial resilience was set up against them, they could not be deposited only because they belonged to the police department to be pushed aside to be charged that Section 103, CRPC is mandatory. The provisions were violated and the non-compliance with this inadmissible rule made the prosecution's story a serious defect, not enforceable. The mere allegation that he was falsely implicated iii, without a positive attempt by him to confirm it, had not resulted, however, the accused had no case, however. Section 489C falls within the scope of the PPC, not the PPC. The accused was convicted of the crime, for five years law firms from Kotla Pathan lawyer