Find a Lawyer

MALIK SALAH-UD-DIN DOGAR versus THE STATE

Under section 9 (a) (vi), 10, 15 and 32 and Schedule II, Para 7, the definition of evidence under 5% of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the accused was accused of being the mayor of a municipal corporation. With the Corporation Investigating Officer misusing its powers to prevent unfair exploitation in favor of harmful contractors. Responsible for being unfaithful to the contractor, but other municipal corporation staff also joined the same investigating officer, saying further that the accused could not be obtained from these contractors nor were they related to them. When he was given any information, he ordered a recovery. Under the reference, the income tax department's money was confiscated went to the federal government, while the loss was taken by an agency belonging to the provincial government whose money was seized. There is no evidence that the accused was available. / The mayor had pocketed the money if the accused had been negligent and did not follow the case, the refund should have been properly charged accordingly and not so strictly as in the present case. I happened to be, there was no evidence on record to suggest any of the men or any criminal intent on the part of the accused, Except that he was negligent and failed to take appropriate action against the contractors, the negligence of the accused during the calculation of mathematics cannot be more than Rs.2,84,301, which cannot be considered more than a civil wrong. There is no explanation available that can be made good by money recovery. The real beneficiaries, ie advocates from Kotla Jam lawyer