Find a Lawyer

RAMESH M. UDESHI versus THE STATE

Sections 3, 4 and 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Sections 9, 10 and 32 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 allegations of corruption and corruption, sale of State Land Charges against former Secretary Provincial Government accused It was that he along with the fugitive accused, the former chief minister of the province, teaming up with each other and securing profit and profit related to illegal, false and fraudulent and section 3. Committed a criminal offense / offense under And 4, under the Accountability Court's approval under the Accountability Act, 1997, the summary of the summary presented to the Chief Minister by the accused / appellant was not disclosed by any illegal interference, illegal and immoral intention. , Which had no evidence on record to show. Receiving any illegal trespassing and strange benefits from the accused through the record on the evidence does not indicate that the accused has taken any illegal or fraudulent benefit, O co-accused, former chief minister (fugitive) because the accused All the essential facts were accurately and accurately stated in the summary presented by the Deputy Commissioner's report that the involvement of the accused could not be proved. Through the prosecution, the High Court failed to appreciate that no conclusive evidence was presented to show any material gain or benefit accrued by the accused and thus could not prove to be a serious offense for the accused. That does not make the overall conviction a crime. And as allegedly proved to be a crime, the accused was not proven, the Supreme Court has accused top advocate from Garh Maharaja lawyer