Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Appraisal Proof Negotiation between the accused and the complainant at the time of the acceptance of the bribe money was not heard by any person of the raiding party nor the amount of bribe. Have witnessed the transition. The complainant's complainant was declared a complainant while the other two witnesses were not presented in the prosecution case against the accused, therefore, there was no evidence, the recovery of the alleged amount from the accused's possession was substantially There was no saddle for. The crime of taking a bribe unless it can be admitted without knowing the fact that it is an illegal pleasure and second, that the agent was sending money to someone else as a bribe to the provocateur and to the crime. He was more than his partner. His testimony cannot be accepted without the involvement of an independent source in charge of being a patwari in the sub division office. l The canal officer could hardly do any kind of favor on the complainant, as the grant of a restriction could only be approved by the Divisional Canal Officer, it was alleged that he had gone unharmed. solicitors from Wana lawyer