MUHAMMAD ZAMURAD versus CHAIRMAN NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
Section 9 (a) (iv) and 10 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), section 431 Defining evidence of corruption and corruption beyond the assets of the accused The known sources of income, the defendant did not deny the acquisition of the assets but claimed That the plot for the residential home was purchased by his father-in-law for his wife and the house was built on it, however, who was the previous owner of the plot before the trial court, who testified that the accused was educating the children. Along with the allegations of expenditures, he also purchased Umrah's performance and UK rentals, through oral and documentary evidence from the prosecution. This proved that the prosecution's witnesses were found to be persistent and trustworthy and their position could not be corrupted despite the prolonged length of cross-examination, while the accused presented confidential and contradictory evidence, convicted and convicted. After examining the material available on the record, the trial court was not truly convinced and the counsel for the accused failed to identify any wrong reading or non-reading of the evidence, which led to the High Court. Intervened. The verdict was pronounced by the trial court and according to the material available on the record, the accused was killed, therefore, his sentence was upheld, however, the fine imposed by the trial court was dismissed accordingly.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
