MUHAMMAD TARIQ AMEEN versus EHTESAB BUREAU AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF PROSECUTOR EHTESAB BUREAU AJ&K, MUZAFFARABAD
It was a matter of examining the evidence of Section 11 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Sentencing Code (XLV of 1860), Section 468 Criminal Code (V9 1898), Section 510 evidence. Has misused his authority to exploit. The third suspect and thus damaged the state exchequer and the entire house building taken up in the prosecution case was restored on an order that was not allegedly present on the file issued by one of the two accused. The original record, according to the prosecution, is in this regard, for the service of the third suspect, a photocopy copy of the order was destroyed which had no identifiable value of the evidence, which was his opinion of the relevant accused's signatures. The handwriting specialist for was not sent to, who declined to issue an order. The document was merely a proposal initiated by the accused, which did not indicate who had come up with a proposal related to the training of the third indictment, the report used by the handwriting expert revealed. That the accused's signature was found on the suggestion initiated by him, but it was a futile exercise because the accused did not dispute the document. The other documents submitted by the prosecutor to the prosecutor's office were sent to the Department of Education. Neither was caught in his presence, nor did he recognize them properly, the accused was guilty of the above documents. Handwriting expert tktun positive feedback about the alleged offense did not fit him, because handwriting expert was not called before the court. Make your report under section 101010
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
