Find a Lawyer

MIAN MANZOOR AHMAD WATTOO versus THE STATE

Section National Account Bureau of National Accountability Ordinance (VIVI 1999 of XVIII), the definition of evidence of section 35 cannot be punished under section 3 (1) (d) of the Accountability Ordinance 1997 because it was not proved Has achieved a certain advantage mentioned in section 3. (1) (d) The charge against the accused of the Accountability Act 1997 was that as the Chief Minister of Punjab province, with his arbitrary grant, the Chief Minister's Secretariat was illegally reinstated and an illegal Rs. The benefit was given. 61,125 from Ms M section design tax was not proved on record as the goods were not supplied to the Chief Minister's Secretariat by the said firm, nor is it a matter of prosecution in reference, nor has it No evidence has been presented. Prove that the defendant's decision to present his secretariat, which was the first step in this transaction, was dishonest, fraudulent and, with the intention of misusing the said amount, was at his discretion with the Grant accused in the Chief's investigation. It was upheld before the trial court that the secretariat was in a bad position against infringement, but that statement would not be considered contradictory and would be accepted by the prosecution. And although this proposed procedure may be subject to the review of the indicators in some different jurisdictions, there was no crime per se under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Caution Ordinance 1997, which resulted in Mains RA or There was a lack of criminal intent. Was the accused an essential factor for the purpose of otz1lictntg even if the accused did not have the option to use the funds to present the secretariat, the evidence on record ask a advocate free from Kohistan lawyer