Find a Lawyer

M. YOUNUS HABIB versus STATE

The High Court on the basis of section 477 corruption prevention act (II of 1947), section 5 (2) criminal code of conduct (V9 1898), sections 225 and 537 constitution of Pakistan (1973), article 185 (3) The defendant has been charged with defamation of a remand, not to mention the specific State Bank regulations or the rule whereby depositing the dollar beer certificate sales reserves with the State Bank within 72 hours, In the absence of the details and the method of forgery of accounts by the accused, in addition, exemptions or omissions concerning the allegations made under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 There were objections, but he could revoke the consequences of justifying the rial conviction if these individuals were found to be misleading allegations. They had the opportunity to abort the accused-in-charge of a charge-sheet in which the alleged transaction took place, including the total amount of alleged misconduct, the nature of the crime and the way in which the accused was involved. The Director-General against whom the FIA complaint was lodged against the facts of the FIR-listed case, with specific clear allegations that the accused, who was the chief operating officer of the bank, violated. Of the banking and Graham related laws, the High Court did not recognize that the above errors or omissions could not be materialized unless the accused had in fact been misled by it and faced a failure of justice. It was alleged before him that he had raised no objection. At trial or in court or at any stage even after his conviction before the High Court that he jobs for advocates from Mirpur (AJK) lawyer