Find a Lawyer

SAEEDULLAH SOOMRO versus STATE

Sections 9 (a) (iv) (V), 10 and 14 (c) of the value of evidence by the methods of corruption and corruption proof The burden of proof was on a civil servant and the property acquired by him on his salary and expenses. Were relatively disproportionate enough to do so. The purchase of the said property proved that the burden of the offense was charged under section 14 (c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for satisfying the acquisition of disproportionate assets from its income. Finding Properties from Valid Sources and Valid Sources I have declared the value obtained as below the market value, so that it can be adjusted according to its leading source of income, which was not enough to buy the property in question. The prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that it was wrong to assume that the accused's involvement in the corruption allegations was wrong and the trial court's decision in the trial proceedings remained intact. The accused was ordered to complete the rest of the sentence while the properties obtained by illegal means were confiscated and the appeal was settled accordingly.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• GHULAM SIDDIQUE SOOMRO v. THE STATE through Anti-Corruption/ Circle Officer Dadu 2011 MLD 133
• NAA CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PVT.) LTD. v. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP UNIT through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi 2011 CLC 135
• M. ASHRAF BULLO v. PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Managing Director 2011 PLC 142
• ASIF RAZA v. FAROZAN MIRZA 2011 CLC 143
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI v. HUMAYUN ELLAHI SHAIKH 2011 PTD 145
• SONERI BANK LTD. 2011 MLD 147
• AFAQ RIAZ AHMED v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2011 CLC 150
• ZAFAR IQBAL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 150

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

criminal advocate from Wah Cantt lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes