CHOUDHARY ARIF HUSSAIN versus STATE
Sections 19 (2) (4), 25 and 27 of the testimonial evidence were handed over to the sub-inspector in charge of investigating a criminal case by the police in the service of the police department. The person who found the case to be a liar. Nevertheless, the accused officer investigated the matter and easily acquitted the accused, the court observed that the investigation was not conducted properly and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Poor inquiry under 27 was due to notice. The trial court charged the accused officer under section 19 (2) (4), the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him under section 27 of the Act and fined him. All such facts were acknowledged by the accused officer. In his statement filed under Section 2342, CRPC, he had properly sentenced for the crime, the order of the accused officer's sentence could not be found. E intervened, but accordingly the fine of Rs. 100,000 was reduced to Rs. 25,000.
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
when you need a advocate from Sherani lawyer
