Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ ALI versus STATE

The definition of evidence in Articles 5 and 4 was not only supported by any evidence in the prosecution case regarding payment of bribe of Rs 3000 to the accused, but was also proved by the prosecutor's own witness magistrate, Circle Officer and Constable. The accused claimed to have recovered the tainted money, did not say whether the money was paid in his presence or that he may have heard any conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of payment. Qualifying with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it was rejected, unless proved to the contrary \ as a defendant and the complainant being a villager, a counsel to the Circle Officer in a cross examination. Given by the complainant. The amount of money that was given to the accused to deliver his brother to his village was able to be hidden from the accused in view of the proposed explanation of the amount, the section on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 4 The idea of receiving a bribe as a bribe stood homeless, especially in the absence of any direct evidence to show that the money was paid as a bribe, acquitted the accused in the situation had gone. r \ n best law firms from Kazi Ahmed lawyer