Find a Lawyer

STATE versus ABDULLAH SHAH

References 3/4 and 17 of the Accountability Act 1997 failed to clearly indicate the existence of a ban on the detention of state land by its allegations, and it was also made clear that despite the value of the land This land can only be settled through an open public auction. Due to the four lakh rupees on four acres, the accused had, with good intentions, recommended $ 25 per square yard for a nominal cost of land and he used his official position without any morals for the beneficiary. Had illegally taken advantage of or justified the legal treasury but had deliberately caused substantial financial loss to the public exchequer even though the possession of the controversial plot was not handed over to the beneficiary, the allotment order itself issued in favor of it. Was created, which created rights and duties. The state treasury was profitable in view of a ridiculously low cost allocation. Under Section 17 of the Accountability Act 1997, government officers, other accused who were civil servants, could not be convicted, they were out of power because of the significant charge and punishment of Section 3, 4 and 5 of the said section 17 precaution. Was. Receiving in favor of the beneficiary of the Act, 1997 was separate from the accused. Consequently, the accused was convicted under Section 3 of the Accountability Act 1997 and sentenced under section 4 of the said Act and imprisoned for two years. The sentence was pronounced. You have to pay two lakh rupees or two years for a fine best law firms from Sangote lawyer