Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus JAM MASHOOQ ALI

Claims 3, 4, 10, 14, 21 and 24 of the Accountability Ordinance 1996 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417, on appeal against allegations of corruption and corruption, were the allegation against the accused A, who had taken public office as non. The others were allotted plots legally. The trial witnesses had themselves proved the allegations leveled against the accused, an accused A sent petitions to the authorities concerned for the allotment of plots, but no action was taken. Whatever their recommendations were taken after all the clandestine observations by the concerned authorities were allotted the plots, no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the accused's treasury had been sent to the state treasury. Something bad happened. The persons involved in the commission of such allegations were also not provided proof of evidence was available to the effect that the accused, as a public servant, had misused his powers and was acting in his official capacity. Had used the post with his immoral and dishonest intentions, with the intention of illegally pleasing himself and making money and / or providing unlawful gain, the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused A. Together with or in connection with other accused persons gain any unlawful benefit or extraordinary benefit for themselves. Or, as the trial court had reviewed the evidence and did not face the idea was foolish decisions unknown. Or the appeal against the defendants' verdict was dismissed in the circumstances female advocates from Lower Dir lawyer