Find a Lawyer

GHULAM ABBAS versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), testimony of section 161 The benefit of the doubt Although the witness of the private counselor / prosecutor supported the case, it did not state that the complainant paid the accused. Or he was found or money was transferred to the accused on the basis of a very serious bribe case, the preacher should have something special in connection with the delivery, receipt and transfer of money by a particular accused. Whose proof it should have been named so that it could be cut with it. The responsibility was insufficient with the obligation of the witnesses to receive the evidence. The evidence of the witnesses was contradictory. There was no evidence that he had any discussion between the accused and the complainant on the money laundering charge. , Nor did any adviser disposing of such facts receive a tainted sum from the possession of the accused, but to whom no such ammo was recovered, they were acquitted, and the prosecutor satisfied. Said he was acquitted because no appeal was filed against the acquitted accused; Milha is extremely suspicious, was given the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted. tax advocates from Leepa lawyer