Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SADIQ versus STATE

Articles 9379 and 9409 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II II of of II), Article (1) of the allegations against the co-accused were that they were, in their capacity as guardian of the forest, of the forest. For the purpose of irrigating the private land of the accused, a raiding party had alleged that no details of the related forest encroachments were on record nor the irrigation department. The accused, along with the officials, was involved in the investigation of the allegations. It was reported that a forest guard had been given water from which the forest was to be irrigated; no allegation was made by the forest guard for breach of trust. The witness also did not see the accused spending any money as a bribe, the session of the co-accused was not recovered or saved any stolen property in this case, the amount of allegedly stolen water Was never considered and the damage in that regard was never estimated. It was not possible, the trial court was convicted by any criminal court for convicting the culprits, no official of the Anti-Corruption Establishment or Local Magistrate was involved in the alleged raid on which such a case was made. Was listed. An interested complainant and consequently a criminal prosecution will have to look through a private raid that fails to prove the prosecution. top civil advocates from Dera Bugti lawyer