Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR KHAN versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION WARIS KHAN

Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance (XX of 1961), Section 8 Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, R8 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 154 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 The petition for removal of the constitutional applicants / accused was filed primarily on the basis that Section H has no jurisdiction in this matter and that the entire proceeding commenced by Section HA has been filed by Punjab Anti-Corruption. 8 depends on the stop. In the Establishment Rules, 1985, it was claimed that the applicant was a civil servant and the registration of the case in relation to the alleged crime came exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, and the local police had taken him anywhere in the said scheme. It did not take evidence that the applicants' confession was misunderstood. The fact that the registration of cases in the general police station, even in the case of Schedule O, was not illegal, because Section 8 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, stated that the provisions of the said ordinance Not for the time being for contempt of any other law, but for all the provisions of the Criminal Code, 1898. While keeping rules 6, 7 and 8 of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985, cannot be interpreted to have the maximum effect under the provisions of Section 154, CCPC cannot exclude Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985. , Cannot be limited to superpem or more. All the parameters laid down in section 8 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 top civil advocates from Phalia lawyer