AZHAR ZIA MIAN versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, LAHORE
Section 497 National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Sections 9, 10 and 25 on bail on corruption and methods of corruption, refusing to delay the case, charged him with a delay of five months on the principle charge of influence in this case. Was imposed because of various requests filed by the accused not to be timely disposed of mainly due to the absence of a lawyer for the accused, after the charges were quoted, repeatedly postponed. And several delays were taken either by the accused or by his lawyer who was accused of delaying his settlement. Is r Referring, the prosecution cannot be held solely responsible for the delay in the trial, the defendant's lawyer's argument for release of his responsibility for the defendants' remuneration in return for payment, this Suffice it to say that the perpetrators available under Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance have the treatment of Palembargine, 1999. In any case, not every suspect was in favor of speeding, but in the end, every accused. Will not be entitled to accept bail after arrest; two factors were very material and relevant; First, responsible for the delay in conclusion. Was one. If the trial is due or occurred because of the prosecution's actions / actions, the defendant can claim the claim with justification, but, if he himself was responsible for the delay, the situation would have been different. After explaining the nature of the matter, the nature of the allegations and the attraction of the charges against the accused in the case should also be considered as trial court, it was clearly stated that the accused Afra.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
