HAJI ZARO JAN versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
Sections 5 (da) and 9 (a) (iv) acquisition of disproportionate assets from known sources of income The definition of proof was the leading source of income and was sentenced to six years imprisonment and confiscation of assets, allegedly national accountability. The lawsuit was filed in the name of the Benedictation of the 1999 Vendetta Entry Scheme of the Ordinance, nor was the defendant provided any remedy against the trial court's order. The defendant had no opportunity to confiscate his property or defend himself, and the defendant appeared in the trial court and recorded his statements in support of the accused, if the defendant, after recording the evidence of the trial court, was dissatisfied and If a negative order is going to be issued against them, then under the principle of Audi Ultram Partum, the court is obliged to ask the B candidates and the proprietors to give them the opportunity to present evidence in support of their claim or ownership. About or to prove that they have enough resources to get enough property The allegations are in place so that the defendants accused of the trial condemned them without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves in a non-defense manner. The court convicted the accused and set aside the sentence and the case was remanded in the trial court for judgment, after which the appeal was allowed.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
