سائکو قتل اور سائکو سیاستدان

[akmal1]

What have you admitted here is that you don't have any proof of any of the above charges . You don't have an answer of my basic question that if NS has been convicted by any court in corruption . You don't have any answer if the court found him guilty of any corruption charges . Yet, you are still playing Ilzam Khan of Pakistan . This is the kind of cynical politics which I see from the PTI and its troll. I have one word of advise . wait till your Ilzam Khan stand shoulder to shoulder yet again with TUQ and Zardari to fight against corruption . The bunch of hypocrites who are brought together to take advantage of an opportunity . What a shame that you and they have no regret from their acts of opportunism.

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE

(c) In any trial of an offence punishable under [SUP]1[/SUP][“clause (v) of sub-section (a) of section 9 of”] this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of [SUP]2[/SUP][assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the, offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and [SUP]3[/SUP]* corrupt practices and his conviction [SUP]4[/SUP][therefore] shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such a presumption.
[SUP]5[/SUP][ (d) [SUP]6[/SUP][In any trial] of an offence under [SUP]7[/SUP][clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 9], the burden of proof that he used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order (SRO), or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on [SUP]8[/SUP][the accused], and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption:]

9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-

[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has [SUP]4[/SUP][acquired] right or title in any [SUP]5[/SUP][“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot [SUP]1[/SUP][reasonably] account for [SUP]2[/SUP][or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income];

جناب یہ قانون پڑھ لیں اور کچھ شرم کر لیں
سمجھ نہ آئے تو ترجمہ کروا لیجئے گا[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE

(c) In any trial of an offence punishable under [SUP]1[/SUP][“clause (v) of sub-section (a) of section 9 of”] this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of [SUP]2[/SUP][assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the, offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and [SUP]3[/SUP]* corrupt practices and his conviction [SUP]4[/SUP][therefore] shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such a presumption.
[SUP]5[/SUP][ (d) [SUP]6[/SUP][In any trial] of an offence under [SUP]7[/SUP][clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 9], the burden of proof that he used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order (SRO), or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on [SUP]8[/SUP][the accused], and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption:]

9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-

[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has [SUP]4[/SUP][acquired] right or title in any [SUP]5[/SUP][“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot [SUP]1[/SUP][reasonably] account for [SUP]2[/SUP][or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income];

جناب یہ قانون پڑھ لیں اور کچھ شرم کر لیں
سمجھ نہ آئے تو ترجمہ کروا لیجئے گا[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Wow, this is great . Then , they must have convicted him then ? Right ? So, when was he convicted without proof ? And how many years he will have to spend in prison because of this ruling ? Any idea . Which Jail is he spending his punishment ?. You are so out of argument that it is not funny . You can give me ten thousand reasons and the trash built evidence , but you have yet to answer my question . Try again and see if you can answer my question. Which court has convicted Nawaz Sharif on Corruption cases, Mr. Ilzam Khan ?

 

[akmal1]

Wow, this is great . Then , they must have convicted him then ? Right ? So, when was he convicted without proof ? And how many years he will have to spend in prison because of this ruling ? Any idea . Which Jail is he spending his punishment ?. You are so out of argument that it is not funny . You can give me ten thousand reasons and the trash built evidence , but you have yet to answer my question . Try again and see if you can answer my question. Which court has convicted Nawaz Sharif on Corruption cases, Mr. Ilzam Khan ?

حضور یہ لائن غور طلب ہے
ذرا توجہ فرمائیے گا

In any trial of an offence punishable under [SUP]1[/SUP][“clause (v) of sub-section (a) of section 9 of”] this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of [SUP]2[/SUP][assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the, offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and [SUP]3[/SUP]* corrupt practices and his conviction [SUP]4[/SUP][therefore] shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such a presumption.

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

حضور یہ لائن غور طلب ہے
ذرا توجہ فرمائیے گا

In any trial of an offence punishable under [SUP]1[/SUP][“clause (v) of sub-section (a) of section 9 of”] this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of [SUP]2[/SUP][assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the, offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and [SUP]3[/SUP]* corrupt practices and his conviction [SUP]4[/SUP][therefore] shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such a presumption.

Lol. You are such a miserable person . The above line tells us that the conviction is a piece of cake for the court in such cases . The accused person is guilty of the corrupt practices BUT he is set free ? These are the lines from the most controversial NAB law and even that criteria with all its necessary clauses is not implemented from the Supreme court. It is this idiotic rush to the judgement of inviting the parties to the highest court of the country to hear the most political motivated case resulting in a decision which is void of any logic.

You know you have no answer to my question . If it were so easy , SC would have convicted him of the corruption without evidence. Your problem is that you are making noises of Nawaz Sharif's corruption but have no proof of it and wanted SC to convict him . Sc sent a lousy decision under pressure which doesn't suit your wishes . But alas, you are screaming here on this forum day and night without any break as if NS has been found guilty of corruption .where is the conviction ??? what is the punishment ?

 

[akmal1]

Lol. You are such a miserable person . The above line tells us that the conviction is a piece of cake for the court in such cases . The accused person is guilty of the corrupt practices BUT he is set free ? These are the lines from the most controversial NAB law and even that criteria with all its necessary clauses is not implemented from the Supreme court. It is this idiotic rush to the judgement of inviting the parties to the highest court of the country to hear the most political motivated case resulting in a decision which is void of any logic.

You know you have no answer to my question . If it were so easy , SC would have convicted him of the corruption without evidence. Your problem is that you are making noises of Nawaz Sharif's corruption but have no proof of it and wanted SC to convict him . Sc sent a lousy decision under pressure which doesn't suit your wishes . But alas, you are screaming here on this forum day and night without any break as if NS has been found guilty of corruption .where is the conviction ??? what is the punishment ?

نہ سائیں نہ
ایڈا سیانا نئیں بننا
ادھر ادھر نہیں بھاگنا
مکرنا نہیں اب سب کے سامنے
آپ نے فرمایا تھا کہ میاں صاحب کرپٹ ہیں یا نہیں؟

قانون آپ کو کرپشن اور کرپٹ اعمال کی کیا تعریف بتا رہا ہے؟
ذرا غور فرمائیے اور یہ بھی بتائیے گا کہ الفاظ
cannot satisfactorily account
سے پہلے ملزم ہے یا میرا نام ہے؟
اگر میرا نام ہے تو بار ثبوت مجھ پہ ڈال دیجئے

کوشش کیجئے!! آپ اتنے نالائق نہیں کہ یہ جملے نہ سمجھ سکیں

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

نہ سائیں نہ
ایڈا سیانا نئیں بننا
ادھر ادھر نہیں بھاگنا
مکرنا نہیں اب سب کے سامنے
آپ نے فرمایا تھا کہ میاں صاحب کرپٹ ہیں یا نہیں؟

قانون آپ کو کرپشن اور کرپٹ اعمال کی کیا تعریف بتا رہا ہے؟
ذرا غور فرمائیے اور یہ بھی بتائیے گا کہ الفاظ
cannot satisfactorily account
سے پہلے ملزم ہے یا میرا نام ہے؟
اگر میرا نام ہے تو بار ثبوت مجھ پہ ڈال دیجئے

کوشش کیجئے!! آپ اتنے نالائق نہیں کہ یہ جملے نہ سمجھ سکیں

My question is not if you call NS corrupt or not. Don't try to twist what I said. My question has been from the beginning and that is if he is convicted by any court on Corruption ? Is any court found him guilty of corruption ? What kind of BS you are here to offer . This is insane. you can drag anyone to the court, put this sentence in front of his name and start to tell people that he is corrupt ? Lol. what a shitload of brain you got. There is not a minute goes by in Pakistan when people are not accused of crimes . If we are to use your definition of corruption , there is no need for any trial , any hearing or any court in Pakistan . You can bring people down by pointing and accusing them . You have no proof of anyone's guilt , yet you can selectively call anyone anything . I thought you will have some marbles left in you but feel like in the animosity of PMLN and Nawaz Sharif, you left that little piece of sanity behind. I asked you a simple question. Give me one verdict in any court in Pakistan in which Nawaz Sharif is declared guilty in corruption . One only one decision . You don't have it . You can't generate one by this idiotic argument .

 

[akmal1]

My question is not if you call NS corrupt or not. Don't try to twist what I said. My question has been from the beginning and that is if he is convicted by any court on Corruption ? Is any court found him guilty of corruption ? What kind of BS you are here to offer . This is insane. you can drag anyone to the court, put this sentence in front of his name and start to tell people that he is corrupt ? Lol. what a shitload of brain you got. There is not a minute goes by in Pakistan when people are not accused of crimes . If we are to use your definition of corruption , there is no need for any trial , any hearing or any court in Pakistan . You can bring people down by pointing and accusing them . You have no proof of anyone's guilt , yet you can selectively call anyone anything . I thought you will have some marbles left in you but feel like in the animosity of PMLN and Nawaz Sharif, you left that little piece of sanity behind. I asked you a simple question. Give me one verdict in any court in Pakistan in which Nawaz Sharif is declared guilty in corruption . One only one decision . You don't have it . You can't generate one by this idiotic argument .

ساری دلیل ہی صفر ہو گئی ہے کیوں کہ آپ نے بنیادی بات ہی غلط لکھ دی ہے. کسی کو گھسیٹ کر لے جانے سے پہلے مجھے اسکا حرام مال اسکی ملکیت ثابت کرنا ہوگا. میاں صاحب کے کیس میں ملکیت کا اعتراف کر لیا گیا. جب ایک بار اعتراف ہو گیا تو اسکے بعد قانون آپ کے سامنے ہے. قانون غور سے پڑھیں بہت غور سے
کرپشن اور کرپٹ اعمال کی کیا تعریف بیان کی گئی ہے؟ مال یا جائیداد کے ماخذ کے ثبوت کی ذمہ داری کس پہ ڈالی گئی ہے؟
ذرا غور سے پڑھو سمجھ آ جائیگی
حقیقت یہ ہے ٣ دن سے آپ نے ایسی بحث چھیڑی ہوئی ہے جسکا بنیادی قانون آپ نے پڑھا نہیں تھا. پڑھ کے آیا کرو یار. دماغ کی لسی کرتے رہتے ہو

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

ساری دلیل ہی صفر ہو گئی ہے کیوں کہ آپ نے بنیادی بات ہی غلط لکھ دی ہے. کسی کو گھسیٹ کر لے جانے سے پہلے مجھے اسکا حرام مال اسکی ملکیت ثابت کرنا ہوگا. میاں صاحب کے کیس میں ملکیت کا اعتراف کر لیا گیا. جب ایک بار اعتراف ہو گیا تو اسکے بعد قانون آپ کے سامنے ہے. قانون غور سے پڑھیں بہت غور سے
کرپشن اور کرپٹ اعمال کی کیا تعریف بیان کی گئی ہے؟ مال یا جائیداد کے ماخذ کے ثبوت کی ذمہ داری کس پہ ڈالی گئی ہے؟
ذرا غور سے پڑھو سمجھ آ جائیگی
حقیقت یہ ہے ٣ دن سے آپ نے ایسی بحث چھیڑی ہوئی ہے جسکا بنیادی قانون آپ نے پڑھا نہیں تھا. پڑھ کے آیا کرو یار. دماغ کی لسی کرتے رہتے ہو

look, you haven't gotten even one word of what I was asking you to produce. I am looking to see one Judgment of any court in Pakistan which convicted Nawaz Sharif as corrupt ? One Judgement , One verdict , one decision . Do you have any one of them ? Tell me yes or No. No more Bull **** of any line from any law. A convicted verdict in any court in Pakistan which found Nawaz shrif Guilty of corruption .

 

[akmal1]

look, you haven't gotten even one word of what I was asking you to produce. I am looking to see one Judgment of any court in Pakistan which convicted Nawaz Sharif as corrupt ? One Judgement , One verdict , one decision . Do you have any one of them ? Tell me yes or No. No more Bull **** of any line from any law. A convicted verdict in any court in Pakistan which found Nawaz shrif Guilty of corruption .

قانون تمھارے سامنے رکھ دیا ہے
لائن تک بتا دی ہے
قانون میں کیا لکھا ہے؟ قانون کرپشن کی کیا تعریف بیان کرتا ہے؟ کس کو کرپٹ قرار دے رہا ہے؟ بار ثبوت کس پہ ڈال رہا ہے؟
سائیں جی یہ قانون رائج ہے. اب آپ کو اچھا لگے یا نہ لگے لیکن قانون یہی ہے
ایک تو تم نے اپنی طرف سے فرض کیا ہوا تھا کہ ایسا کوئی قانون نہیں
ڈیڑھ ہزار دفعہ تم نے مجھ سے ثبوت مانگے ہیں. ہر دفعہ تمھیں یہی بتایا کہ الله کے بندے قانون ملزم سے ثبوت مانگتا ہے
لیکن مجال ہے کہ تمھیں رتی شرم آئی ہو
اور اب بھی ڈھیٹ بن رہے ہو کیوں کہ قانون میں صاف لکھا ہے کہ جس کے اثاثے ہوں اسی نے ماخذ بتانا ہے اور نہ بتا سکنے پہ وہ کرپشن کا مرتکب مانا جائیگا
نہ کسی تفتیش کی ضرورت اور نہ ہی کسی ثبوت کی
تم اندازہ لگاؤ اپنی جہالت کا کہ اس قانون کی موجودگی میں بھی تم مسلسل اسکے الٹ موقف اپنائے ہوئے تھے
بندہ شرم ہی کر لیتا ہے کہ اتنی لمبی لمبی تقریریں کر رہا تھا اور اب پتا چلا ہے کہ قانون موجود ہے
اس طرح بحث کا کوئی سواد نہیں ہے
بندے میں اتنی شرم ہونی چاہیے کہ کم از کم سامنے موجود چیز سے تو نہ مکرے
کم از کم پڑھ کے آیا کرو اور جو پڑھتے ہو اسے صحیح طرح سمجھا کرو