Find a Lawyer

STATE versus MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN SHAH

Accountability Ordinance 1996 Sections 2 (f) and 3 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Rules of Business of the Section 265 (Sindh), para 7 (iii) by the Chief Accountability Commissioner as competent reference to the Chief Justice I have been accused (as a term of reference) of being sued by the Chairman and Members District Council for arranging and implementing face-to-face schemes on their personal family farm. Evidence from the prosecution has clearly shown that the electric-powered road was a public road that was widely used by the public. And the matter was not in the special use of the accused and his family's witnesses investigated through the prosecution in which the accused was not declared a contractor in any way to remove the road and the area from electricity. , Presented by the District Council, which was unanimously the area. Electricity was not only the cultivation of the accused, but the entire village was requested by the power which the accused dominated the district council and the concerned department. Evidence was not obtained on record to carry out such a plan, which would be considered a government order passed by the Chief Minister for approval of the fund because the business prosecution rules failed to involve the Chief Minister. (Accused) had been found guilty of misappropriation of such funds under Section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Facts, Conditions and Evidence of Criminal Code, 1898, under Section 3, Accountability Ordinance, 1996. Accused by the accused and on this account guilty of corruption and misdemeanor acts, errors and commissions law firms from Mirpur Khas lawyer