Find a Lawyer

MIAN MANZOOR AHMAD WATTOO versus THE STATE

Section National National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999 1999 X 1999), Section 35 gives evidence of allegations in a careless, unruly and unlawful tanner, unexpected from the province's chief executive, who was the public interest and property watchdog. Without confirming the recommendations made. It terminated the property of the City Development Authority in a single day, alleging direct responsibility that it did not enable the development authority to perform the proper procedure, in the manner allegedly exercised by the accused. Was against the principles set out for the use of. Discretion undoubtedly constitutes such a fact, which satisfied the key words of the accused with dishonesty and counterfeiting in the precautionary ordinance, 1997 and section 3 (I) (c) of the Accountability Act, 1997, The allotments could not be made for the plot of the accused. For various reasons and attempts, it was not a crime to invalidate or alter the scope of Section 3 (1) (c) of the Consolidated Accountability Ordinance 1997, granting Allitz the absolute right of ownership, or accountability No doubt in the Act, 1997, it was proved on the record that he had made a clear and positive effort. The transfer of valuable property of the development authority to the allottee will be beneficial in a corrupt, dishonest, illegal and unlawful manner, unless the offense is committed in the aforesaid law. Can't be punished. Any other person in section 3 (1) (c) of the Accountability Ordinance 1997 for such action is excluded from the same section of the Accountability Act 1997, thereby committing an offense under the purview of section 3 (1). Attempted to famous supreme court advocate from Parachinar lawyer