Sections 5 (da), 12, 13 and 32 Freezing of Property The Proof-proof House, hearing the trial court, objected to the plea of the accused appellant as the real owner on the basis of unregistered sale deed. ? And the accused had nothing to do with it, the trial court dismissed the objection and the property was not frozen. Authorities were unable to prove that the property transaction discussed was anonymous and failed to prove that after the release of the accused, the appellant's property may be owned by Section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (F) should not be frozen, it was alleged that the former owner hanged the General Power of Attorney, which was told that he had considered the sale of the house through a general attorney registered sale deed. Sold in favor of the person from whom the appellant purchased the check, which was the product, before the trial court before the CED real owner he There was a person on whose behalf the sale process was registered and he could only challenge the appellant's property from which he had acquired the appellant's title successfully proving that the landed house was purchased by his independent source, ie. By payment. There was no purpose of procuring the original documents, four checks, being in the possession of the suit house, procured by the accused prosecution, by which it could be proved that the suit house was purchased through the money purchased from the accused. He allegedly arranged in a corrupt manner the High Court set aside the trial court's order and released the house under question
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
