FAIZ RASUL versus THE STATE
The complainant, allegedly defining section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, alleged that he had received the accused after collecting some money, accused of obtaining a separate connection. The suspect allegedly issued fake receipts. The official liability of one of the seven prosecution witnesses confirmed the story presented by the complainant. The complainant's statement did not inspire confidence and the statement of isolation was not sufficient to prove a conviction and the sentence was set aside 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
patent advocate from Noshki lawyer
