Find a Lawyer

DR. EMMANUEL ONUWABUCHI KEKE versus STATE

The defendants were not arrested on the spot if the evidence of Section 9 (c) and 15 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898) was appreciated, and no drugs were recovered from their possession during the investigation of the case. The FIR itself showed that the raiding party accused was not identified or named by himself and that the accused was involved in the case on the basis of the alleged disclosure of the accused co-accused, the trial court, while the accused was arrested. While admitting to admitting bail, he himself observed in his order that the accused was involved. The statement of the co-accused who was unacceptable in the evidence indicates that the members of the raiding party could identify the escaped offender, but in this case there was no parade of inquiry so that the accused was the accused. The trial against was not based on legally admissible evidence. In order to protect anyone from the seriousness of the lawsuit, there is no possibility of a provision of section 265K, CR PC. But the trial court had not previously maintained this objection to the provisions while rejecting the plea of the accused presented in this regard. Continuing to harass the accused through a trial that was not likely to end up in the conviction of the accused would be a misuse of the process. The court, which still cannot be allowed to stay, was set aside and the accused, under section 265, applied, the PCP was accepted and the accused acquitted in this case. Was \ r \ n famous high court advocate from Kohlu lawyer