Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TAJ versus LIAQUAT

Section 417 Accountability Act (IX of 1997), Section 3/4 Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 406/409/467/468/471/109 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Act Appeal against: The proceedings against the accused were started on the basis of inquiries made by the Cabinet Committee on Minister for Works, Education and Secretary Forest, but the record revealed that it was the Chairman. In this case there was inquiry. The related inquiry, which was made on the basis of reference, has shown that the inquiry in this case was not done in accordance with the directive and did not rely on such inquiry report in accordance with the rules of natural justice. This could be because with the inquiry before the trial if the accused was not related, the sentence could not be based on that inquiry The evidence on the record has shown that the chairman and the members of the inquiry committee in their respective constituencies Opposition was the result of the inquiry committee report, political enmity and disgust in the circumstances As in criminal matters, I could not believe any statement or report that resulted from being defrauded with a corrupt Chief Accountability Commissioner or based on the report presented. The Chairman, however, directed that the names should be excluded from reference as the most minor irregularities were mentioned against the accused, but nevertheless, the respondents, in view of the Chief Accountability Commissioner's observation, cited and included The charges were laid as the accused. The suspects and all the actions taken on the basis of this report were equally improper. famous supreme court advocate from Bajaur lawyer