Find a Lawyer

RAMESHM.UDESHI versus THE STATE

Articles 9, 10 and 32 Corruption and Corruption Evidence Definition of Proof The Accountability Court had convicted the accused under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 on the charge that the Secretary, the Board of Revenue, Department of Land Use Has acquired the status quo. The tremendous damage to the state treasury co-operative traders who inflicted this on prices was a huge loss, and the land beneficiaries under question had requested the chief minister to lease it for a period of 99 years instead of 30. Convert arable land into agricultural / residential / industrial land. Over the years, the Chief Minister allowed the request of the co-accused, but on the objection of the Treasury Department, the Chief Minister rejected the above proposal by hiding it to the concerned Parse, in which the Chief Minister rejected the proposal to dispose of the land under question. Done, disposed of the land. The accountability court, in the circumstances I rightly mentioned in favor of the beneficiaries, decided that it was their moral duty to identify the relevant parish and the earlier order dismissing the Chief Minister's proposal. But he hid it all, causing it to be an abomination by the accused. This act, by itself, was sufficient to compel the prosecution by way of documentary evidence-based litigation against the accused, and the accountability court accepted all points in its decision and only concluded that the national Under Section 9 of the Accountability Ordinance, the offense was committed by the accused on the appropriate principles punishable under section 10; the appeal against the judgment of the accountability court was dismissed. us immigration advocates from Shedani sharif lawyer