Sections 12 and 13 (c) authority to freeze property The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) issued frozen orders against the accused (appellant), and an appeal against such order was dismissed by the accountability court, Confirmed the order and directed the accused to enter a new object. According to the Section 13 of the National Accountability Ordinance, the 1999 prosecution's argument was that the accountability court had earlier declared the accused's objection request, as well as the certification order had been filed before the approval and the accused. Had no reason to file an appeal. Because Article 13 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was granted to the accused, and the accused should first file his / her fresh objection, before the accountability court affirms, the accountability court The request for object of was dismissed. Just as prematurely because the object can be filed within 14 days from the date of the order of freezing of such property, and the objection petition was filed as before, so the rights of the accused Has been protected and allowed by filing a new objection request to it. According to the provisions of Section 13 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the present appeal before the accountable court was not heard before the accountable court, with the instruction to present the fresh objection before the accountability court to the accountability court.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
