Abuse of the provisions of Sections 9 (a) (vi) and 10 (a) was not certified on the basis of the statement of evidence and through any documentary evidence. In his capacity as a Deputy Commissioner, he made a sub-engineer on the municipal committee. Was asked to make a false (low) assessment of the value of the state land and the same accused was allotted in favor of the accused convicted under Section 10 of the Accountability Court. A) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and was sentenced to six months imprisonment under which the appeal of a fine of Rs 25,000 filed by the accused before the High Court was also dismissed, to prove the accused's manslaughter. The only evidence for this was the sub-engineer's statement, alleging that he initially charged the land at Rs 150 per square foot but it was on the accused's request that he reduce it to Rs 30 per square foot. Nezinger admitted in his cross-examination that he never gave in writing that the price of the property was Rs 150 per sq ft. The sub-engineer said he had After assessing the value of the enclosed property, the subjects assessed the value of the property but admitted that the adjoining property was never assessed by the prosecution at the rate of Rs.150 per sq. There was no question about, or about, any private benefit from the said transaction, or about the fact. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the municipal committee endorsed the sub-engineer's statement about the value of the property, nor was there any documentary evidence that the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sentence was retained.
