THE STATE THROUGH PROSECUTOR GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY, PAKISTAN versus TARIQ NOUMAN
Sections 9 (a), 25 (b) and 32 Criminal Code (v. 1898), sections 249a and 265 of the corruption and misconduct allegations made available to the accused by the jurisdiction of the court in connection with the availability of corroborative evidence 652 K, CR P.C. Did evil under. Authorities claimed that there was sufficient evidence against the accused, which could have led to the conviction. In the event of corruption and misappropriation of public funds, the court was required to act with caution and caution in deciding such a matter and should not proceed too quickly. In this case, the accused should be provided with every possible opportunity to prove his case and to prove the guilt of the accused after the full trial, as there may be cases, in the case under Section 249A or 265K, CR PC. In addition to the evidence of the two witnesses, the record was also indicative of the fact that the two accused, who were in public office taking advantage of Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, voluntarily obtained the amount of embezzlement they received. Most of the fraudulent claims were submitted by the employees of the accused and the interest amounted to the entire embezzlement of Rs 52 million. Such evidence was submitted by the accused, who is the nephew of the principal accused. The verdicts without which he could not be neglected or ignored were set aside by the trial court and the cases of the accused were sent to the trial court for proceeding from the stage when the case stood. The incident happened when the accused was applied under section 656565. , CR PC decided
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
