THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH
Section 468 Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Section 417 Appeal against the verification of evidence of fraud, criminal misconduct on fraud charges (accused) I bought the property. The amount of Rs 40,000 was added to the Mutanturtip as the sale price of the property was sold exactly two months after the unusual sale price of Rs. During the disclosure of the property, the seller (confidant) had confessed that he had paid a lump sum to the lessee to consider selling the lessee so as to avoid and avoid public taxes. The dispute over the sale of the property mentioned by the seller paying Rs 27,50,000 was indicated by the contract of sale of Patwari. That the fair sale price of the property was listed because the value of the prop in the notification was shown to be such and it was an irrigation property located in a rural area, far from the fact that the person The property was sold to the seller, he had purchased it himself three months before the controversial change The trial court wrongly declared the property to be an agricultural property in which the commercial property was owned by the accused (seller, constituent) Patwari, Deputy Tehsildar and Gurdwara constituency) actively and considering the sale of property in the upper reaches Rs 27.50,000 The amount of Rs 40,000 was deliberately collected instead of the original price and it caused damage to the state exchequer, the prosecution proved the accused guilty. Therefore, on reasonable doubt b
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
