Section 9 (a) (V), 10 and 32 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 10 and 4 defined the delay in the appeal in filing an appeal unless otherwise the High Courts rejected the appeals or petitions. Was always slow to do. He was inclined to hold a hearing on the matter and the merits of the case so that it could be alleged that he had purchased a helicopter and used and maintained it for his election campaign, while the costs of the accused and the maintenance costs. Were beyond that. There was no evidence of a leading source of income against the accused, as no witness to the prosecution had testified before the trial court that the purchase or operation of a wet lease or helicopter, or operation or maintenance of the accused. No money was paid by the source. The cost of its sale is not evidence that the accused made money from his account or his dependents or his associates' account on payment of galleys or the purchase of said helicopters by helicopter. That the accused was obtained on a wet lease for the party's election campaign and for his personal use, the prosecutor could not furnish a voucher or any document that could result in payment. The said helicopter prosecution failed to establish any of the accused's relationship with the helicopter as an owner or otherwise was alleged in the background, in connection with the helicopter alleging ownership of its assets. Cannot impose. The trial court had ruled that the helicopter was, in fact, based on fraudulent transactions.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
