Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM GONDAL versus STATE

Sections 409/34, 420/34, 468/34, 471/34 and 218/34 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (III of 1947), Section 5 (2), the definition of evidence alleging that the accused was a food grain inspector and food Are cereal supervisors. The responsibility was equal and they were responsible for taking appropriate measures to keep the wheat stock safe, so as to avoid theft and when records were not required to supply wheat to the warehouses, the records did not show. That the wheat was minimized, that no one else could be held responsible for the shortage of wheat in the bags, in connection with the allegations made at the relevant center at the time, the prosecution's testimony maintained as official testimony. According to the records, were removed. There was no personal jealousy, no ill will or no hostility to the accused. There was no contradiction or contradiction in the prosecution's evidence that a negative pattern could be created, one after the other, after the two accused were taken there. Who was trying to excuse himself from criminal liability, but was responsible for the misuse and damages that occurred during the transportation of wheat and the mines handed over to him. Was harmful to our planet. The conduct of the accused was a reflection of Ms Rey's conduct, as she was a stockbroker and assigned the excellent task of handing over and transporting her, providing reliable and convincing oral and documentary evidence to the Department's official The record was presented on the basis that most of the defendants had proved themselves responsible for the allegations that they were unable to prove their plea in defense. immigration advocates contact from Chak Sawara lawyer