Appreciating the evidence of Sections 27 (1), 43A and 83 (1C) of the Ordinance of Banking Companies 1962 regarding any attempt by the competent inspecting officer to search the premises of the accused for the confiscation of records. It did not indicate that the accused had resisted. The accused also tried to search his premises in such a way that he had no such record and was prosecuted only because he could not file an affidavit in support of his statement. That was not a legal requirement and the accused cannot be punished for it. He was charged, arrested, did not violate Article 43A of the Ordinance and was acquitted under the circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
