DR. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus THE STATE
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5 (2) of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), when it was printed after illegally satisfying Section 161, provided that it had received a disputed amount, in fact, to pay it. The excuse was given to him by the complainant. The description purchased by the complainant as the price of the goat by the complainant was confirmed by the designated suspect, which was otherwise quite understandable, at the raid's office. In this case the only witness present and the other independent and unwanted witnesses who were accused is evidence of some hostility and ill-will against the statement made by the independent and unwanted defense witnesses and affected by the trust and safely relied upon. Because the complainant is against the prosecutor's unprofessional interest statement who is unable to prove his case. Is working. It is suspected that the accused was put aside and sentenced and 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
list of advocates from Narowal lawyer
