KADIR BUX versus STATE
Articles 9409 and 8468 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947 of II), section (1) were not prosecuted by a leading prosecutor to prove that the accused was responsible for counterfeiting. The Assistant Advocate General acknowledged that the evidence was not available in this case. Without such evidence, the accused cannot be held responsible for tampering the record and that the mere speculation does not impose the accused. In the circumstances, the prosecution could not be proved, the accused had tampered with the record against which the case was not proved. His appeal against the sentence was permissible
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
famous supreme court advocate from Khair Pur Mir lawyer
