ALTAF AKBAR BARLAS versus THE STATE
Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (XLV of 1860), section 161 charged a sub-engineer who sent the complainant / contractor's bill for payment, from the payment of the complainant. It was related. (Contractor) Bill There was no material contradiction in the statements of the complainant and the raiding magistrate regarding the procedure for obtaining the tainted money from the personal search of the accused at the time of the bill printing, it was alleged that the fraudulent amount was recovered. And provide explanations for the retrieval. When this duty was available to him by the person, then a clear explanation was given to him and because of his failure and failure, he was guilty of his guilt, shame and fear. Used to create a feeling of being overwhelmed with emotion. Recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused itself was a co-ordinate factor that no longer needed.
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
best law firms from Bhara Kahu lawyer
