Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAMIL versus THE STATE

Corruption Prevention Act 1947 Section 5 (2) Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Appraising Section 161 Proof There was no evidence on record to prove that the accused had demanded money from the complaining magistrate and D-section P did not hear the conversation between the accused and the. Contradictory versions of the money were present about the person who had actually delivered the envelope containing the defaulted money, especially when the person who had arrived in the presence of the accused and advisers on the fraudulent money. The witness was not made in the box, the accused was acquitted family advocate from Shikarpur lawyer