Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (XLV of 1860), the Section 161 accused claimed by the trial court for allegedly taking bribes from the complainant and claimed That the complainant was not supported in the prosecution's case because he stated that he did not pay the accused the alleged bribe, but that he paid the accused to the other officer and accordingly The accused had paid that amount; if it appears that the accused has been deliberately exempted then the statement raiding party was arranged by the magistrate and Neither did the statement that the magistrate received the money after the money was recovered from the accused, though the complainant has deliberately made an exception to the accused, saying that the defaulter paid the accused to pay the other officer. Was given, but it would not be enough to pardon the accused, as it was stated that during the statements under the sect and the accused was paid the money 344, the accused of the CC himself admitted. That the raiding magistrate had recovered the accused from his hand, in which case he could not escape his criminal duty and was truly punished and Conviction.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
