Find a Lawyer

ASGHAAR ALI SHAH versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code Sections 468 and 420 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Evidence Act (I of 1872), Section 3 alleged that it was alleged that the Rs 32V was converted to Rs 820. Done, there is no evidence to prove that. No witnesses have claimed that he saw the accused changing the figure \ 3 document to \ 8 \ in the relevant document and the copy was not presented. However, some witnesses presented by the prosecution have identified the signatures / handwriting of the accused on various documents so far they have remained silent in relation to converting the data to Rs 320 to Rs 820 and they changed No 8 of. The stats were not identified so that the accused could not be tampered with by a handwriting expert. The figures were presented in the relevant document Certain circumstances, although it was raised against the suspect that he had tampered with the data contained in the document but the suspect could not replace the evidence within M. ? Therefore, the prosecution's evidence of section 3, the Evidence Act, 1872, failed to prove that the document was forged by the accused and that no one else where the PPC had proved to be a major criminal offense under section was6868 There was no justification to prove it. Of corruption under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 immigration advocate from Hattian lawyer