Find a Lawyer

STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN versus CAPITAL TRADING COMPANY

The evidence against the defendants in Sections 27 (1), 43A and 83 (1C) of the Ordinance of Banking Companies 1962 was that they are partners of a trading company, when the complainant, through the State Bank of Pakistan, Demands under Section 43A, 1962, for guidance, providing information, documentation or support for his business if he is doing banking business is a violation of section 27 (1) of the Ordinance. , So they failed. 1 C) The ordinance directive, which was allegedly diverted, was issued to the accused, shortly after the formation of the trading company by the accused, he was unable to present the record to the State Bank, the complainant complained. Invited his representative to inspect his office. Whenever any authorized officer of the State Bank has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused has refused or refused to furnish the relevant records, even the Senior Director of the State Bank of the State Bank at any time. The accused's office did not go; the complainant admittedly failed to produce evidence to convince the court that the instructions issued by the State Bank prosecution were deliberate defamation which, beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused. Failed to prove case against, he acquitted on charges of increasing benefit famous supreme court advocate from Blitang lawyer