Find a Lawyer

KHALID AZIZ versus THE STATE

National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 Section 10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The Supreme Court of Appeal allowed the accused to consider the shortage whether the High Court punished the accused without the compliance of the provisions. Whether or not the sentence is retained. Section 14 (c) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance; whether in the case reported as PLD 2001 SC 607, this designation was made in accordance with the rule of law presented by the Supreme Court in para 224. If the High Court had failed to hold that while imposing a fine on the accused, it could not be less than Rs 4,60,96,000 as the penalty amount could be imposed on the accused or a relative in any case. The benefit achieved cannot be less than. Or associated with it, pursuant to s11 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. Whether the High Court reduced the sentence imposed on the accused by the Accountability Court - contrary to the provisions of section 10 (a) of the ordinance. Whether the High Court erroneously concluded that the accused failed to account for Rs 38, 43,500 instead of only Rs 4,60,96,000 without giving any reason, and whether the High Court Had erroneously reduced the sentence in the absence of any mitigating or controlling circumstances. Especially when the reasons presented by the Accountability Court were held to hold the accused responsible for the commission of the crime list of supreme court advocates from Panjgur lawyer