Find a Lawyer

ABDUL AZIZ MEMON versus THE STATE

The reasoning cited in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 (V9 1898), Articles 221, 222, 223, 225, 282, 535 and 537 is that the accused in the charge made by the trial court is public Was designated and therefore responsible for the period between 1993 and 1996 when he was a public servant as a member of the National Assembly, thus causing his material misconduct under section 5. 535 and 7 537, the CCPC had to consider whether the court had erred in making any mistake, mistake or irregularity, and in that direction to consider the questionable matter whether the accused was misled. Went or was prejudiced. Defending the allegation under which he was convicted under Section 173, CRPC, and in the present case copies of references provided to the accused, there was a detailed version of the prosecution regarding the well-known citadel. The accused was charged with the income cess of the income and the assets held throughout the said period from 1970 to 1996 until 1996, though the charge was stated to have a public office but the charge was referred to Had to read with In the context of the allegations, the accountability court did not refer to the trial for a period between 1993 and 1996 only when it was based on the principles of public office. us immigration advocates from Sara e Naurang lawyer