Find a Lawyer

RASHID AHMAD versus THE STATE

Section 9/34 / ruption 34 The Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947 1947 of II), the definition of evidence (3), its effect was to say that the funds were actually misused by the accused or Evidence available on the record suggests that the fund was actually used for development work in the area, although initially the money was allocated for distribution to flood victims. The question in the account, which has been made in the present case under the express authority of the superior authorities, is that there is no such transfer in respect of the use of the Fund for this purpose. Exception cannot be taken. In addition to its original purpose, it was available on record that Administrator Zakat stopped payments to Sai and requested permission to use the funds for flood victims and development activities in the area. Which was allowed, even on the use of the relevant funds for any purpose other than the original purpose, no objection could be made to it. Seriously the prosecution failed to prove the accused. Throughout the trial, there were reasonable doubts, convictions and convictions in the trial against him. registration advocate from Shaheed Benazirabad lawyer