HAMID ALI versus THE STATE
Under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1948 (XLV of 1860), section 161 was highly skeptical of defining evidence because it chose to give the same to another witness, rather than to pay for it himself. What the suspects demanded illegally was neither present nor present when the bargaining was attacked when the raiding magistrate and the investigating officer saw neither the money changing nor the parties and their statements. The matter was heard, therefore, in this case no significant defense version of the prosecution had been put in place. Such conditions become more criminal according to which the accused has been acquitted
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
top advocates from Gojra lawyer
