Find a Lawyer

ASIF ALI ZARDARI versus STATE

The testimony of section 4, relating to this matter, was in fact the National Accountability Bureau already paid and recovered under a settlement approved by the Accountability Court at the request of the Prosecutor General, NAB, but the trial court was, in the present reference, prosecuted. At any stage prior to the action initiated by the accused, the name of the accused was mentioned even remotely; the investigating officer did not include the accused in the confession, though he was fully aware that the accused was under investigation. Was detained. In some other cases, the record and even the reference itself did not show the basis on which the Chief Accountability Commissioner had started, the whole reference revolved around Manzoor's statement, which, according to the Deputy Prosecutor General, was merely annexing the evidence. After reading the same in conjunction with other evidence, the record of the sanction recorded by the record magistrate on ce, the accused with the alleged crime, whether it was confession or a statement under section 164. The CCP read with section 18 (2) of the Accountability Act 1997, the evidence was inadmissible because none of the conditions in the relevant laws were declared admissible as evidence of the presence of a prosecution witness Who first took the name of the accused. The court itself was tainted and did not affect any conviction There is no evidence available from the record to indicate that the accused had been acquitted in the circumstances to indicate that the accused had ever been found on the relevant dates. ? property advocate from Lower Dir lawyer