Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Explanation Code (XLV of 1860), section 161 defined the evidence as naturally that their statements were recorded 3/2 years after the incident, otherwise they fully supported the prosecution's version. Was, therefore, related to the seizing of the defamatory currency notes as evidence of the enmity of the witnesses mentioned above. The evidence of the accused and the accused / A Section I testified that the witnesses of the accused had no illicit desire to falsely include the accused in this case, nor did they suggest any enmity. The accused was seen transferring the money through the prosecution's testimony, nor did he hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and thus the SA could not use the accused as useful, at the time of the raid. In the first statement, the defaulter did not request respect and alternatives to explain the receipt of the money and merely stated that The money was put in his pocket. During the course of the complaint, the accused did not make any prediction in the defense plea that the case was made at the request of the Colonel, who could not be entertained under which the raid proceeded. Was also denied, especially when the accused failed. To support such a plea as his own witness is the fact that the accused's physical remand was not timely received, to no avail, as such an illegal action is a permanent, concrete , Could not fall under the shadow of a well-established and proven prosecution version. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 when you need a advocate from Naseerabad lawyer