Find a Lawyer

ZAHID MAHMOOD MALIK versus DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION, PUNJAB

Sections 409, 420, 471 and 168 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, R7 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 FIR's constitutional jurisdiction to remove the constitutional jurisdiction of the applicants claimed Was. The Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules were not regulated by the provisions of R7 of 1985, which provided for the initiation of a preliminary inquiry against a civil servant by a deputy director or an officer. The look was imitation. The other argument of the law is that since the accused was disqualified in the departmental inquiry, the criminal case against him should also be dismissed; he was not empty of anything, as well as the prosecution and criminal proceedings against public servants. Can go along with it and may end up in different cases. Conclusions The High Court cannot resolve the disputed question in its constitutional jurisdiction. If an offense is committed initially, the High Court will not be allowed to reside in the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction before the trial. Should. The court had jurisdiction to terminate the FIR without appreciating the documents presented by the parties without any evidence, giving them the opportunity to take interim examination or to confront them with the documents in this case by the High Court. No opportunity for interference, constitutional application to terminate FIR is dismissed, in the circumstances immigration advocates from Neelam lawyer