Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ AHMAD versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CCPC) Sections 561A Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 406, 409 and 420/109 of the West Pakistan Food Stuff Control Act (XX of 1958), Sections 3 and 6 of the Corruption Act (1947). Ka II), accused of stopping Section 5 operations, provided rice dealers with non-standard rice to export to other countries from a consortium of two food department officials, to the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan subst. The order is pending against the food department against which the food department demanded the quality difference from the accused suppliers. Prior to the Director, the Department of Food Appeals could uphold the matter and prevent the need to continue litigation against all four rice suppliers. Director Food was directed by the High Court to decide the appeals within a month and after the decision, the department consulted with the Rice Export Corporation. The four accused will decide whether to leave the prosecution against the suppliers. The case of the two accused officials was at different levels and they could not avoid litigation, whether the case against the four rice suppliers was dropped or not, except for disciplinary proceedings. There is no legal restriction, however, against civil and criminal trespass. The action in connection with the same incident, however, was to prevent matters in those circumstances advocates from Rawalpindi lawyer