Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIZWAN versus STATE

Sections 497 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 471 and 109 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Section 5 (6) ) The jurisdiction of the High Court State Council was guaranteed, in view of the provisions of section 5 (6) in relation to the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, any jurisdiction to bail the High Court in connection with the crime. Was not an option In relation to the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, Article 5 (6) of the Ordinance was restricted to the validity of the Ordinance only if the court intended to do so. It must satisfy itself that reasonable grounds arise to reasonably believe that the accused was guilty in the scope of the High Court schedule offense under which the cases of the Bank's Respects (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The bail of the accused could be granted and the powers of the High Court to grant bail in the aforesaid Ordinance were not diminished, nor was there any civil servant, nor any fraudulent or forged documents produced or corrupted. There is a charge of using the same provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Prevention Act. , 1947 and Sections 468 and 471, PPC could not be attracted, in the context of the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 406, PPC under Section 406, PPC, which would constitute a material, The ingredients would be there if the property should be handed over to anyone. Approach to the person; that he or she must have the property domain. That they mistakenly misappropriated this property or converted it into their own. Or that it violates any aspect of the law attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Nawab Shah lawyer