GHULAM MUSTAFA versus STATE
Corruption Act 1947 Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Although the defective amount was neither presented in evidence nor communicated to a witness to the raiding magistrate or adviser. Not shown to listen. In the presence of the complainant and the accused counsel did not prove the recovery of the tainted money, Mashiyama was admittedly prepared in the ACE Office Minor, which advised the raiding party, the prosecution did not prove Had failed to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted in circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
inheritance advocates near Faisalabad lawyer
