Find a Lawyer

ABDUL SATTAR versus THE STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Section 409/34 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 417 (l) Appeal against the trial court in the case discussed. Was referred to as completely invalid. The trial court neither discussed nor considered it at trial during the first trial on defense evidence and the prosecution case, along with key pieces of documentation, as well as oral evidence contained by the prosecutor. , Neither the defendant contradicted the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The signatures on the documents mean that the accused had agreed to hand them over to the wheat and empty bags. The accused did not even challenge the inventory register, the stock report books mentioned illegal baggage stocks in which the trial court acted illegally. Defend certified photocopies of documents that are expert reports unless such experts are examined in court and, in the absence of original documents, the defendant's duty after the trial is to blame. The evidence on record was misrepresented even after the Commission provided further assistance. In the case of litigation against them, 1441 metric tons of wheat was misused and at such cost 14736 land bags were also proved against the accused, who, as a civil servant, was convicted under Section 409/34. Granted, the PPC read with Section 5 (2). Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. RI is calculated on two counts of two millions each law firms from Mehar lawyer