Find a Lawyer

ABDUL SHAKOOR versus STATE

Corruption Prevention Act, 1947 Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 161 (2) Proof, Defendant defining the money laundering incident An accused in the complainant's home was charged. A section I was arrested by the raiding party. Money from the home allegedly complained against her nephew in favor of the complainant in the case filed on her report. The tainted money was not recovered from the accused but was found lying on the blanket on the complainant's bed, allegedly involved in the case by the complainant and the accused, seeking unlawful pleasures in the presence of a witness. So far, the complainant and two advisers testify that he is testifying to transfer the defective money to the suspect near the place from where the magistrate's witnesses took the money that the accused had thrown away. In the statement under Section false40 ((2)), the Code of Criminal Procedure, in 1898, neither the witnesses were given a clear inspection nor any evidence presented to prove that the magistrate, counselor and inspector, the complainant The evidence was not cross-examined in the cross-examination case, beyond any doubt, and there was no reason to deny his testimony. famous lower court advocate from Kakul lawyer