Find a Lawyer

SARDAR ALI versus THE STATE

Corruption Prevention Act, 1947 Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Validation of Section 161 Evidence An enmity between the accused and the first informant was not possible, in which some contradictions existed It wasn't safe enough to rely on. The statements of the magistrate and the inspector were not fatal to the prosecution nor were they brought to any record, nor was it repeatedly stated that these two officers would falsely impersonate a processor server for any purpose and to defraud. The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and his statement was recorded at the place where he confessed to the fact, thus the prosecution made the case against the accused without any doubt and The culprits of the accused were retained in custody. famous supreme court advocate from Havelian lawyer