Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), the currency notes of section 161 evidence recovered from the possession of the accused were the same as those marked by the raiding magistrate who could not prove that they had been received. Was the money that he clearly deposited. Since the accused agricultural tax could not record anything to prove such a request when the defendant made a specific request at the trial, the respondent would have to present his evidence and prove his request. The invocation should shift to this or at least its application should support the circumstances and it should. The trial court, in the present case, had good reasons for refusing the defense witness's statement and ignoring the request made by the accused fact that the magistrate did not communicate with the accused and the complainant before paying the tainted money. Was sunny The accused did not deny receipt of the tainted money from his possession, the accused could not prove the case against him, the result of corruption was that there was nothing on record that the raiding magistrate had been treated unfairly against the accused. And there was no dishonor against it. Nothing illegal in the proceedings by the magistrate was found, nor was there any irregularity in this regard, although the suspect was taken advantage of. Can be extended to, but such an advantage can only be extended if it is actually removed from the evidence. And it was not just imaginary and artificial, the designated trial hearing was not detected any illegal things, so retained
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
