Find a Lawyer

MST. BIBI SALIHA versus THE STATE

Sections 10,11,17 (c), 18 and 32 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, the Accountability Court found the accused guilty and ordered to confiscate his property in the state as such. Occupied it while the original owner was. The review petition was submitted by the alleged benamidars to the accused for having a close connection with the accused, but the challan was put in Court No. 2 but they issued notice to the accused for prosecution. Except that there was a show cause notice on the closure of the prosecution's evidence. He was released under Section 17 (c) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, to which he replied in writing and counsel Baniyadamdar was never presented as an accused and evidence of prosecution in his presence. He submitted to his lawyer because he was not listed. Anonymous was subjected to discrimination and could not be deprived of the property he owned. Benami should have been allowed in the trial court on his right, even though Benedimar dared to add evidence based on the prosecution's response to the notice. Explained how they had acquired the lower property and their competent lawyer said they did not want to include evidence in the defense. The party had refused to take advantage of the defense witnesses' testimony and failed to appeal to the trial court for the first time to re-examine the prosecution's witnesses, he would be entitled to clarification on any such complaint. Enlivened by a second request. family advocate from Nawab Shah lawyer