ABDUL HAMEED versus THE STATE
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5 (2) of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), the only member of the raiding party to admire Section 161 evidence, stated in his cross-examination that he had filed a complaint in connection with the demand for money laundering. The conversation between the defendant and the accused is not heard. Nor did he witness the allegations made by the complainant, and the complainant's interesting and illegal testimony was also a material contradiction which stated in his testimony that it was illegal, Apart from the accused, other persons have demanded that I have not been able to recover the accused's money from the accused. If the prosecution failed to prove the accused beyond suspicion, the accused was acquitted. Was done, under the 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
famous high court advocate from Kachhi/Bolan lawyer
