Find a Lawyer

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU AND OTHERS versus RAHEEL RASHID

In the context of Sections 18 and 31D, the benefit of the Governor's State Bank Useful Loan was against the four accused who received the loan and deliberately defaulted, with the preliminary reference from the Eighteen National Accountability Bureau and the Accountability Court to the Governor State Bank. The National Accountability Bureau later added two more suspects to this reference. As the beneficiary or the default amount, whose names were not included in the reference to the Governor's State Bank proceedings before the Court of Accountability, a beneficiary accused, before the High Court, seized his name. was not. The Governor State Bank's reference, therefore, to the National Accountability Bureau as well as to the court had no jurisdiction to proceed against it, the High Court allowed the application in the use of constitutional jurisdiction and the National Accountability Ordinance to the beneficiary Demanded the delivery of Section 31D of the. , 1999, related only to i There was nothing available on the miscellaneous loan, default loan or default loan record, which can be inferred that the beneficiary accused conspired with the borrower at the time of obtaining the loan. Was either intentionally defaulted or acquired assets from the default company or the money received from it. The Directors High Court ruled that the National Accountability Bureau or the Accountability Court did not have the authority or the authority to prosecute the accused without the approval of the Governor State Bank under Section 31D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. Of The beneficiary accused was not a direct lender, therefore, the governor approved the State Bank. law firms from Naukot lawyer