Appearing in section 5 (2) of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), section 161, the Supervisory Magistrate admitted in his interim examination that he could not see the accused (court reader) outside the court and the accused and his Could not hear the conversation between. At the time of transferring the alleged money to the accused magistrate, the complainant also admitted that he did not see the fact of providing the currency note to the accused investigating officer when he had not remembered it before. Prior to the submission of the petition, he carried out the raid on the accused. The accused did not appear in front of him while receiving the alleged bribe during the raid. That he had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the relevant time. That he did not remember that the defendant's money was seen moving to the accused and was not indicated by it. That no one was called to testify at the time of the raid and that he had not planned the site of the incident and that no criminal action was recommended against the accused complainant and that he had conducted his own investigation. Investigation admitted that the contents of the application were submitted by means of which he had a contentious prosecution of the statements of two witnesses, a controversial prosecution, in which, without any doubt, was able to prove his case against the accused. Was not released, the accused was acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Conditions
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
