Find a Lawyer

MISBAHUDDINFAREED versus THE STATE

Sections 9 (a) (iv) (v) and 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 were charged with defining evidence that the accused was maintaining an account with a transaction / deposit of Rs. 34,00,000. And he bought a car in his wife's name, the prosecutor's account statements showed on trial court records that the accused's account was never charged against him at any date, but that This was the case throughout the 9 years and eventually the account was invalidated with a balance of Rs 42. In the end, the accused had explained various deposits to his account and the version of the accused was supported by his uncle who was assisted in checking the financial status of the accused's uncle and he It would be premature to confirm the accused's version and to dismiss the defendant's evidence completely because the suspect's version is likely to be true, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case. In relation to the car, the accused's wife said that he was gifted by his brother. There was no reason to reject his wife's version and to reject her. The two men mentioned in the charges against the accused. He was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. He was acquitted of being entitled to the benefit of the doubt inheritance advocates near Okara lawyer