Find a Lawyer

AHMAD DIN versus STATE

In its statement under Section 342 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 161 accused of illegally obtaining restitution, CR PC stated That the complainant provided the smuggled money recovered from it in order to be sent to someone else and to remain on the oath statement under Section 340 (2), CR PC:: The raiding magistrate and the police inspector filed the complaint The matter was not heard between the defendant and the accused, the probable possibility that the accused could not receive the fraudulent money illegally and get the same amount to go to someone else. Thus, the nature of this transaction cannot be excluded and the statement of perpetrators' testimony also requires independent cooperation which is not the case. A satisfactory basis, therefore, exists to punish and punish the accused in the circumstances us immigration advocates from Chakwal lawyer