Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIAZ versus THE STATE

Section 5 alleges that when he was posted to Patwari (consolidation), he obtained a loan for one month from the complainant in 1977, but instead of returning within a month as promised, the accused stated. That he had adjusted the above amount for some modifications to the charge of charges and unlawful pleasures which the accused entered upon the complaint of the complainant and the person to whom the accused provided him, according to the complainant's testimony. That the accused was given to the accused after the end of the stabilization proceedings when the accused expressed any kindness towards him or his hate. Even if it was assumed or believed that the accused had taken money from the complainant, it could not be said that the accused had received it illegally. The defendant was allegedly paid a question in 1977 as a favor, or as a compensation or reward for acting on any of the complainant's records or displaying misconduct, but in 1980 a complaint was filed against the accused. Was done Such long silence on the part of the complainant intensified against the truth of his claim and could not be entered into the scope of such a transaction. Section, Corruption Prevention Act, 1947 1947. Con charges and charges against the accused are set aside top advocate from Chaghi lawyer