THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL, N.-W.F.P. versus ZAFAR BAIG BITTANI
Section 420 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) (e) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 417 of allegations of fraud, fraud and misconduct against the respondent / accused of corruption. The appeal was that he had accumulated better assets. This means that the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, the State had filed an appeal against it saying that the bad properties purchased by the respondent / accused appear to be disputed by known sources of income, owned by the defendants. The car also appears disproportionate to its known sources. They claimed that the car belonged to their son, but that claim was not credible because their son was a minor and had no independent means of doing business, so he could buy the same charge against the respondents. Was, in the circumstances, proven beyond that. No doubt the trial court is working hard and, despite the evidence on record, the charge could not be retained after the defendant was proved, the trial court's unclean findings were put aside and the respondent corrupted. Was convicted, convicted and sentenced,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
