also collected the GEQD opinion
dated 08.12.2017 Ex. MPW20/C. Thereafter, he had recorded
statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and placed
Cbi vs 1 Rakesh Sharma S/O Sh. S D on 23 March, 2012
IN
Shreyas CGHS in DDA as Ex. PW29/B to Ex.mPW29/E (file D21).
PW17 Smt. Aruna Chaudhary who had remained posted
inference thereon. [ Shankar Lal
vs. State of M.P. , (1990)1 MPW N 76 at 113; Mohan Lal vs.
State of Maharashtra
Punna V. State of M. P , 1996 (1)MPJR 397:996 MPW 376 it
was held that, "There is no such explanation
cTd0egf h`i!j%k
B# l / 2# C27m)UnACW`opB MPW q O 3+Qr8nstQ
u H, B7UVW`27mvow2#_`_ \]MwM9\x2#Ga27m+27mymVW
COURT Jaccused.
hesitation
of
onthe U toDSURESH
record.
that
OF GProsecution
MPW-4
ahold E NKUMAR
person
that T
prosecution
will
Ct Satbir
examined
comeGUPTA ... Ipossession
have
evidence
wasnoreceived
onthe Jaccused.
hesitation
of UtoDahold
record.
that GProsecution
MPW-4
E Nprosecution
person
that T
will
Ct Satbir
examined
come
h3QT¡-Q@
£ ; ¤
QTS
¥MPW ... L1MPORQTS
GIVMP¬T8$®$PMªH
6$QB¥MPW
Mpw xyVXz
relations with Rakesh Kumar & Company also. He
also provided the screenshot (MPW1/D1) and also Mark PW1/D.2
(Colly
