Find a Lawyer

KHAN MUHAMMAD MAHESAR versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (SINDH)

Section 23, the proviso reference shows that the accused is the owner of the property in the name of the applicant as the owner of the anonymity and the application for the release and removal of such property is that he made such The property was acquired and the accused has nothing to do with the same perpetual act of authority. The applicant introduced the accused into a bank, where the accused issued a check to the applicant on 13 accused 1995. Such checks cannot be construed to imply that the property obtained by the applicant was intended for the defendant several years before that. The fact of introducing the accused will not show that the applicant acquired the property for the benefit of the accused in 1997 but there is nothing available on the record to establish any reasonable link or connection between the applicant's property. Was. Providing personal bonds by applicant \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• ALI HUSSAIN alias ALI HASSAN v. State 2010 YLR 572
• MERCK MARKER (PVT.) LTD. v. UNITEC PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. 2010 MLD 573
• Mst. AYESHA v. State 2010 YLR 577
• PETROMARK (PVT.) LIMITED v. ALI TRADERS 2010 CLD 578
• Engineer WALI MUHAMMAD MEMON v. MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 2010 MLD 582
• ABDUL KARIM v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION JAMSHORO 2010 PCrLJ 585
• SAIF-UR-REHMAN v. State 2010 YLR 587
• PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD through Manager National Stadium, Karachi v. DIRECTOR/DISTRICT OFFICER, PROPERTY/ENTERTAINMENT TAX 2010 YLR 591

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

when you need a advocate from Battagram lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes