Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF versus DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT PUNJAB, LAHORE

Section 5 (2) Constitutional Rules (XLV of 1860), Section 511 Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, RR 7, 19 and 15 (2) (B) Constitution of Pakistan 1973), Article 199 Constitutional petition FIR suspects Without preliminary inquiry into the violation of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985, the Director, Anti-Corruption Validity Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 was canceled, was not a legislative process and was passed by the Executive Authority. Couldn't work. Parents' laws and FIRs are registered without following the rules mentioned, the accused could not be granted any right to terminate the same purpose of inquiry required under R7 of the said rules or only Whether the identity of the complainant was to be investigated or the information and the facts of the complaint or the nature of the allegations in the case, the information requires immediate action, and there is a delay in the execution of the lawsuit. Failure to initiate a preliminary inquiry may result in the loss of substantial evidence. Even after the trial was registered, the accused was given an opportunity to refute the allegations during the investigation while the allegations made by the complainant were supported by the documentary evidence against the accused. The case against the accused was still at the investigative stage. And the Director had no opportunity to exercise powers under R19 of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985, which was not mandatory in nature and was under his control. The only person who could not exercise judicial powers and take on the role of the judicial provisions of R 19 (3) of the Rules has given the grieving person his tax advocates from Kharan lawyer