Inability to participate in elections or to sign a public office, judging the petitions filed by the accused under Section 15 and 25 of the Ineligibility, Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was not kept in view of the fact that the two There was no meeting in mind. Under section 15 of the said ordinance, the parties are considered to be incompetent, while the accused were bargaining for the petition while it could be alleged that doing so would not result in any disqualification. Because it's possible they took it that way. Under Section 17 of the Accountability Act, only the return of the profits was placed under an unclean order and the matter was returned to the accountability court so that the accused would hear fresh evidence on the petitions filed by them. Questions will be allowed. The points on which they would like to be enraged, including the question of the previous discus properties, were then appealed for a similar decision.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
