Find a Lawyer

M.A. RASHID versus THE STATE

Section 497 (2) Ordinance of Banks (Special Courts) (IX of 1984), Section 5 (6) Sanctions (XLV of 1860), Section 409/420/468/471/477 A / 109 Corruption Act (1947) II), Section 5 (2) bail, after the matter was brought to the notice of the Chief Executive of the Bank, the defendant could not pass the order of freezing of the bank accounts unilaterally, nor had he any legal obligation. Was done Or the obligation to do so, however, he simultaneously accused the chairman of the directive that the bank account frozen order was complied with, however, it was required to issue a checkbook to the co-accused and make entries for the transfer of the accounts. There was no survey related. , Or in the name of the co-accused, had not signed any fake checks or documents in the name of opening a bank account and withdrawing Rs. 20 lakh from the same accused, nor was there any financial loss to the bank by any act or mistake. best advocate from Okara lawyer