MUHAMMAD SAFDAR versus DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, PUNJAB
Section 173 Office of the Federal Ombudsman Order (in 1983), Arts 9 and 14 Constitutional Code (XLV of 1860), sections 420, 486 and 471 of the Corruption Act (II of 1947), section 5 (2) of the Constitution Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition An FIR has been lodged against the accused / applicant in connection with the execution of wrongdoing / ownership of the accused by the accused / applicant. The matter then went to the civil court, the complainant. On the complaint filed by the defendant, the Ombudsman instructed the complainant to approach the Director General's Anti-Corruption Establishment as the matter was not resolved in the final case. When the petitioner / accused challenged the order of the Ombudsman that the matter be investigated again through writ, it directed the respondents / officials of the Anti-Corruption Establishment to investigate the matter. The petition contends that the Ombudsman provided an opportunity to be heard without it. Investigation of the facts in the case of the applicant / accused's allegation is needed which the High Court could not within the constitutional jurisdiction. The accused / applicant has failed to prove that the re-investigation has caused any prejudice to the accused. After submitting the report, numerous investigations can be carried out in criminal cases. Under Section 737373, a PC and fresh challan may also be presented, but criminal proceedings were not prohibited in the presence of civil proceedings, but both types of proceedings could be continued at the same time that the accused / applicant contends that the Ombudsman The order passed without the accused / applicants was the power of the hearing without any power because before the negative order was passed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
