Find a Lawyer

KHALID PERVEZ versus THE STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Defining Evidence The obvious contradictions that appear between the statements of the first informant and other witnesses were that the informant first stated when the amount The suspect was transferred, the police constable / prosecutor's witness grabbed the suspect with his arm and brought him to the magistrate where the defaulted currency notes were seized, the first informant, including the magistrate, denied. Upon receiving the signal, the above accused, who threw the money from where he was raised magistrate, as well as the police officer (prosecution) The witnesses also admitted that they had not listened to the conversation nor changed the money so that the witnesses had deceived each other as far as they had been recovered. The fraud was related to the currency notes. The suspect's sentence was dismissed with the benefit of the doubt best law firms from Barkhan lawyer