Find a Lawyer

SAFDAR HUSSAIN versus THE STATE

Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Evidence on the demand for bribe money by the accused was very little magistrate and the inspector receiving the accused money. Did not see, nor heard anything that he could unlawfully accept as a joyrunner to indicate that, while submitting as a defense witness, he admitted that the accused accepted the bribe. All consultations were signed in the Anti-Corruption Office prosecution, thus, cannot be safely relied upon. Was when the accused was acquitted. when you need a advocate from Daur lawyer