Referring to the prosecution of the accused under sections 3 and 14 (1) of the Accountability Ordinance 1997 (IX of 1997), sections 3 and 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 265D Accountability Ordinance, 1997 The court remanded to the Accountability Ordinance, 1997 dismissed the trial against the accused and the Accountability Act 1997 came into force, under the effective provisions of the Accountability Ordinance, discharged under the Criminal Procedure Rule, 1898, Criminal Procedure Rules, 1898. The hearing proceedings were not to be applied. The time for its cancellation was to continue under further Code of Conduct and Accountability Act, 1997. From the date of the enactment of the Accountability Act 1997, its provisions will apply to cases pending against the accused under specific Ordinance Charges. Had to be set for In section 3 of the Accountability Act, 1997, the offense under the terms of the Accountability Act, 1997 will not be complete unless the property owned is misused or replaced. The result will be merely inappropriate or consequential attempt to alter the case against the accused was not unlawful use or the part of the accused for the allotted property could not have committed the offense under Section 3C, therefore , Was never completed and could not be blamed as a result. It is designed for a crime that the public office holder depends on himself, his spouse, or his spouse, or whether he has made such an allotment. Did not receive any special benefit from, the accused was not guaranteed to be charged. Where charged by the prosecution
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
