Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, MULTAN

Section 5 Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, R15 (1) (a) Punctuation Code (XLV of 1860), Section 409 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Sections 173 and 265 K Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 The Constitutional Appeal Inquiry has been filed by the Anti-Corruption Establishment Order before a court of jurisdiction authorized to submit invoices against the accused / applicants. The petitioners requested that three officers of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, who had given up the inquiry, recommended to leave the inquiry. But the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption directed the court before the relevant quarter and submitted it to the competent jurisdictional court. The petitioners argued that under Rule 15 (1) (a) of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985. Upon completion of the investigation, if the allegations were not made, the case was to be dismissed and the order of the Additional Director Anti-Corruption was illegal and illegal. The Additional Director Anti-Corruption had the final authority to accept or otherwise obtain the information of its subsidiaries, and they concluded on the basis of material that the recommendation to leave the case was not justified. Given the evidence on record, they did not have to approve Rule 15 (1) (a) of the Judicial Procedure of Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules 1985 as the common law did not provide any result of compliance with the aforesaid law. had gone. Become a directory when it is merely a matter of direction but not when these instructions have been followed by the Express that they have already followed in disobedience, if they disobey this law. best advocate from Naukot lawyer