Find a Lawyer

CHAUDHARY AAMIR ALI versus THE STATE

Sections 9 (a) (v) / 10 (a) and 14 C were defined as evidence for the possession of the property acquired by the accused, but according to him it was not obtained as a result of any misuse of powers. had gone. He was declared as mayor of the corporation or otherwise through corruption and in the income tax papers, which also indicated the sources of income that in this case the prosecution established the basic facts that would prove to be criminal. Must do. This is true in its place, but in those cases, which include disproportionate assets from a known source of income for the accused, the law raised the idea under Section 14C of the NAB Ordinance in which this fact was provided. That the accused or any other person on his behalf. He was in possession of the property or had irrelevant sources of known sources of income that he could not reliably calculate, the court will present, unless proven to the contrary, the cap on the allegations of corruption and corruption Such views were uniformly added to the element of the Mans RA and placed the burden on the accused to prove to the contrary that pursuant to Section 14C of the NAB Ordinance, the conviction of the accused would not be invalid. ? Only and only based on a concept of law that was well-known, but the accused could not successfully deny that the accused's property properties were beyond his known sources of income which his taxpayers had rejected during 1983. In 1993, the accused's income did not justify the acquisition of such large and valuable property as he owned and the burden, therefore, forcing him to deny the crime. best law firms from Noshki lawyer