RAMZAN ALI HEMANI versus THE STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL (NAB)
Sections 9, 10, 18 and 32 of Law Evidence (1984 of 10), Arts 72, 78.84 and 129 of corruption and allegations of corruption against the accused, who at the time, served as the bank's branch manager. Were. Was it that he was not charged at any stage in parallel banking, bank account fraud, fraudulent accounts and misappropriation of public funds, the prosecution witness authenticated the documents presented by the prosecution's witnesses against him. Was denied. The bank ledgers and other relevant documents were not only presented to prove mass manipulation by the accused, under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, they were to prove their innocence without any reasonable doubt. , But not a single document was produced by the accused to prove his innocence. The prosecution's witness presented more than 1,500 documents to prove the accused's active involvement in the case. The Investigation Officer had also proved the allegations leveled against him. From all the evidence presented by the prosecution's witnesses, it was inconceivable to conclude that the allegations against the accused were beyond any reasonable doubt. Can be punished under section 10 (a) of the said ordinance under section 9 (iii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the trial court imposed on the accused under trial.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
