2025 PLP 2565 (YLR)

Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J.

Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the captioned criminal appeals, arising out of judgment dated 09.10.2020, passed by learned Judge Accountability Court-I, Islamabad in Reference No. 05/2015, whereby appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi in Crl. Appeal No. 167/2020 has been convicted and sentenced to 12 years R.I with fine of Rs. 300 million. In Crl. Appeal No.179/2020, appellant Adil Butt has been convicted and sentenced to 07 years R.I with fine of Rs. 10 lac. On the other hand, NAB Authorities have also filed their appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal No.180/2020 by claiming the enhancement of sentence against the acquittal of appellant Muhammad Ejaz and another Crl. Appeal No.181/2020 against the appellant Adil Butt for enhancement of sentence from 07 years to maximum limit.

2. Brief facts referred in Reference No.05/2015 are that numerous complaints have been received from general public against appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Muhammad Adil Butt as well as Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused), who were involved in the illegal business of Modarba. They have received huge sum of money with a promise to return/repay the same with profit, but they have neither returned the principal amount nor paid the profit. The accused persons with active involvement/ assistance of each others, lured the general public for investment in the name of Modarba and had dishonestly collected huge amount. The inquiry was authorized against the accused persons on 08.05.2014, which was converted into investigation by the competent authority on 02.12.2014. Initially 738 complaints were received by NAB with total liability of Rs. 708 million approximately. As per record, the appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi was partner in the company namely NE Associates as well as joint bank account holder of account titled NE Associates along with accused Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted). Heavy transactions have been found in the above titled account during the illegal Modarba business. The appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused) have registered two more companies under the name and style of NE Poultry Pvt. Ltd and NE Foods Pvt. Ltd in 2011 with SECP, but both the companies were neither registered as Modarba companies nor the same were authorized to collect the investment from the members of public at large. As per allegations, the appellant Muhammad Numan Qureshi dishonestly issued few Modarba agreements on letter head of NE Associates under his signatures to members of the public at large. He also issued guarantee cheques of NE Associates signed by him at letter pad to assure members of general public that their investments are in safe hands and would be returned to them very soon. All the accused portrayed different businesses with dishonest intentions in order to lure the general public for their investments to develop the trust of general public and all the investors, they have paid attractive profits to the investors and certain individuals for some period, but later on, they defaulted. The amount so paid as a profit was being paid from the capital collected in the name of Modarba. The appellant Adil Butt is a Motor Mechanic by profession, who is running his own shop in Rawalpindi and he in connivance with absconders accused persons namely Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan dishonestly collected the amount from the members of public at large illegally and unlawfully in the name of companies, which were not registered under Modarba companies. He and his other two absconders accused persons dishonestly issued Modarba agreements under his own signatures. During the course of investigation, two of the accused persons namely Syed Asksheed Hussain, Shahid Jamal of Ali Associates Multan and Munir Ahmed have admitted their guilt and entered into a Voluntary Return agreement under Section 25(a) of NAO, 1999, which was accepted by the competent Authority of NAB and amounts have been returned to those persons. All the accused persons have been charged for the offences of corruption and corrupt practices defined under Section 9(a) iii, ix, x and xii of NAO, 1999 punishable under Section 10 of NAO, 1999 and schedule thereto vide order dated 09.10.2015. After submission of Reference No. 05/2015 before learned Accountability Court No. 1, Islamabad, the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of 148 prosecution witnesses including a private individual, who have been defrauded by the appellants accused in this case along with statement of Record Keeper of SECP, bank Record Keeper, FBR officials and NAB comprising of 29 witnesses, whereas defence side has also recorded the statement and produced three DWs in their favour after recording of their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. while denying the allegations. The Trial Court after recording of the entire evidence, decided the case and convicted the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Adil Butt in terms of Section 9(a)(ix) of NAO, 1999, whereas Muhammad Ejaz has been acquitted from the charge, as a result of the same, cross appeals have been filed against conviction as well as against acquittal and enhancement of sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt and Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused) contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge and the conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court is unlawful and based upon surmises and conjectures; that the Trial Court has not appreciated the documentary evidence submitted by the appellants in the defence as well as available on record in its true perspective, despite the fact that the entire case is full of doubts; that the majority of the witnesses have conceded the claim of the appellants that matter between the parties is of civil nature and same could only be settled by the competent Court of law having jurisdiction in this regard as it is a business dispute, which has nothing to do with the corruption and corrupt practices in terms of Section 9 of NAO, 1999; that the appellants have served substantial portion of the sentence and as such there is no further justification to enhance the sentence in any manner, when the doubts and mitigating circumstances are surfaced on record; that the entire issue revolves around civil dispute, where prosecution witnesses have acknowledged that they have invested the amount in the business and they have received huge sum of money as profit, in such situation, the NAB Court has no jurisdiction to settle the financial claims by considering the same as an offence under the law, therefore, the judgment of conviction may be set-aside and the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt may be acquitted from the charges and appeal against acquittal and enhancement of sentence may also be dismissed.

4. Learned Special Prosecutor along with Investigation Officer, NAB contends that the charges against the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt stand proved, who have committed fraud with the general public in the name of illegal business of Modarba in connivance with accused Muhammad Ejaz, who have been acquitted from the charge with the help of Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os), as such Trial Court has committed error while acquitting Muhammad Ejaz from the charges, though he was part of the racket. Both the appellants have registered different companies with SECP, but they are neither registered as Modarba companies nor the same were authorized to collect the investment from the members of public at large and they are guilty of offence under Section 9(a)(ix) of NAO, 1999. He further contends that the entire case is based upon documentary evidence, whereby number of Modarba agreements were signed, receipts were issued, executed by all the accused persons and even they have issued different cheques to the victims/ prosecution witnesses, which were dishonoured on their presentation, in which overwhelming evidence brought on record by the prosecution entails maximum sentence in the offence, therefore, appeals filed by the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Adil Butt may kindly be dismissed and the appeals filed by NAB against accused persons namely Adil Butt for enhancement of sentence as Trial Court has awarded lesser punishment to him and appeal against acquittal of Muhammad Ejaz may kindly be accepted.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. As per record, numerous complaints have been received against the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt and Muhammad Abdullah, Abdul Manan (P.Os) and Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused) of NE Associates in NAB, whereafter verification process of the complaints have been intiated and Ms. Iffat Shaheen/PW-14, Deputy Director, NAB, Rawalpindi was appointed as Inquiry Officer in this case, whereby she was authorized for inquiry through Ex.PW-148/1. She summoned the complainants/victims during the inquiry and recorded their statements, in this process Muhammad Nauman Qureshi was in judicial lockup in some other criminal case, whereafter she filed interrogation application Ex.PW-148/2, which was allowed and warrants of arrest of appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi was issued on 03.06.2014 Ex.PW-148/3. Two of the accused persons Aksheed Hussain and Shahid Jamal have initially entered into VR, amount of Rs. 40.5 million and Rs. 112 million respectively have been paid by both these accused persons through VR, affidavits Ex.PW-148/6 and Ex.PW-148/7. Similarly, the land measuring 03 Kanal and 06 Marlas was transferred by accused Muhammad Nauman Qureshi in favour of one Muhammad Munir, which was returned as the land was without consideration, therefore, letter of caution Ex.PW-148/8 has been placed upon the said property. The vehicle LW-748 Liana was found in the name of Muhammad Ejaz and 10 Marlas house in the name of Abdul Manan (P.O) was found and same was frozen, the vehicle was also seized. Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of all the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., comprising of 119 victims/complainants, who have invested huge sum of money in NE Assoiates. An advertisement published in Daily Dawn dated 13.07.2014, whereby I.O has collected the record through different seizure memo. Ex.PW-148/20 to Ex.PW-148/139 comprising of original bank record of all the accused persons including bank satements, cheques, dishonoured slips, different Modarba agreements, FBR record, Excise and Taxation Office record, Revenue Record, SECP Registrar of Firms record, articles of associations of the companies, incorporation certificate, Articles of memorandum of association, transfer of letters record of Mine department from Government of KPK etc.

7. The Investigation Officer has filed a Reference No. 05/2015 after thorough probe and investigation against the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Adil Butt, whereafter produced 148 prosecution witnesses in this case to prove the charges against Muhammad Nauman Qureshi as he being the head of NE Associates, which was not registered as Modarba company in the SECP, rather the same was registered with Registrar of Firms of Islamabad in the year 2006 for Import and Export and IT Services and the appellants Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt, Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os), Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused) have induced the different individuals and public at large and lured them for investment of amount and collected amount of Rs. 708 million approximately on the pretext of Modarba business, even issued cheques against the investment or the profit amount, but the same was dishonoured and not encashed. The appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi has also induced general public by showing housing societies, Alfa Dairies Jhang, Gadoon Juices Factory, Poultry Control Shed Patoki, sugar by arranging the vist to those places with the assurance that these businesses are generating the profit, and as such all these persons including Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.O), Muhammad Ejaz acquitted accused), who were working under the command of principal accused Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, have received millions of rupees in this false pretext. The charge has been framed vide order dated 09.10.2025 by the Accountability Court, Islamabad.

8. In order to distinguish the role of each of the accused their cases/roles have been discussed as under:- Role of Muhammad Nauman Qureshi (principal accused, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 167/2020) Out of 148 witnesses, Sajid Mehmood, PW-1, Waliyat Shah, PW-43, Ashiq Ali, PW-57, Ghazala Bano, PW-61, Tahir Mehmood, PW-68, Abdul Hafeez. PW-73, Khalid Mehmood, PW-74, Muhammad Azeem, PW-76, Sarfraz Ahmed, PW-78, Sardar Ali Haidery, PW-93, Muhammad Younas, PW-94. Salauddin, PW-102, Khair Muhammad. PW-103, Osama Inam, PW-111 Anjum Malik, PW-113, total 15 in numbers have categorically stated in their evidence that they have invested and paid the amounts in cash to Muhammad Nauman Qureshi on different occasions with the assurance given by him that the amounts so received by them in the investment of Muzarba business invested through Muzarbat Nama in NE Associates, even Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and his co-accused got visited the housing societies, juices plants and Dairies Forms in order to further lure the witnesses/victims for the purpose of investment, therefore, the details of payments by those 15 victims are as under:- STATEMENT SHOWING THE DEPOSITION OF PWS WHO NAMED MUHAMMAD NAUMAN QURESHI-II OR HIS FIRM NE ASSOCIATES. Name of PW Amount of investment Invested with Cheque/Modarbat Nama Sajid Mehmood, PW-1 17.1 million Abdullah Modarbat Nama + Cheque of NE Associates Waliyat Shah, PW-43 23,200,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque of NE Associates + Agreement Ashiq Ali, PW-57 1,100,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Ghazala Bano, PW-61 300,000 Nauman Qureshi Agreement Tahir Mehmood, PW-68 2,050,000 Nauman Qureshi Cheque Khalid Hafeez, PW-73 1,000,000 Nauman Qureshi Cheque Abdul Mehmood, PW-74 600,000 Nauman Qureshi Modarbat Nama Muhammad Azeem, PW-76 1,408,000 Nauman Qureshi Cheque Sardar Ali Haidery, PW-93 20,000,000 Nauman Qureshi Poultry shed. Muhammad Younas, PW-94 1,500,000 Adil Butt Nauman Qureshi Modarbat Nama Salauddin, PW-102 1,400,000 Nauman Qureshi Agreement Khair Muhammad, PW-103 1,300,000 Nauman Qureshi Bank cheque Osama Inam, PW-111 51,900,000 Adil Butt Nauman Qureshi Modarbat Nama/Cheque Anjum Malik, PW-113 1,100,000 Incomplete statement

9. All these victims have been cross-examined at length, and as such they remained consistent upon one factor that the appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi is the head of the NE Associates Firm and given the assurance that they will be given handsome benefit and even all of the victims have received huge sum of money, though it is admitted position on record that the amounts so received by those 15 prosecution witnesses are from their own paid amount/principal amounts. Role of Adil Butt (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 179/2020), As per evidence of the prosecution, the Adil Butt is accused in this case and his business partner/employee of the principal accused Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and he has also given assurance to the victims by giving them Muzarba agreements of NE Associates and received huge sum of money, whereas the details of payments received by Adil Butt from the victims, which is as under: Statement showing the deposition of PWs who named Muhammad Adil Butt or firm NE Associates. Name of PW Amount of investment Invested with Cheque/Modarbat Nama Raj Wali Khan, PW-3 15 lac Muhammad Adil Modarbat Nama + Cheque of NE Associates Mansoor Sajjad, PW-4 3.4 million Abdullah, Muhammad Adil, Manan Modarbat Nama Mushtaq Ahmed, PW-5 Rs. 3150000 Muhammad Adil Butt/Abdullah Modarbat Nama + Cheque Muhammad Nasir, PW-7 Rs. 700000 Adil Butt Cheque + Handed over by Ajmal Ali Ahmed, PW-8 Rs. 2600000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Shakir Ahmed, PW-9 Rs. 1200000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Gul Hameed, PW-10 Rs. 1400000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Noor Zaman, PW-11 Rs. 500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Shahid Pervaiz, PW-12 Rs. 500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Atif Ali, PW-13 Rs. 1700000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Mahfooz Ul Haq, PW-14 Rs. 300000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Ahmed Khan, PW-15 Rs. 300000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Muhammad Siddique, PW-16 Rs. 500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Mudasir Khalil, PW-17 Rs. 400000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Liaquat Mehmood, PW-18 Rs. 1050000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Ghulam Hussain, PW-19 Rs. 700000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Muhammad Ashraf, PW-20 Rs. 500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Bashir, PW-21 Rs. 250000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Javed Iqbal, PW-22 Rs. 266000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, PW-23 Rs. 200000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Zeeshan Sultan, PW-24 Rs. 11,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Akbar, PW-25 Rs. 8,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Shehzad Mustafa, PW-26 Rs. 12100000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Muhammad Idrees Ashraf, PW-27 Rs. 225000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Safdar, PW-29 Rs. 3,50,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Abdul Mateen, PW-30 Rs. 00000 Maulvi Abdullah, Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Bushra Bibi, PW-31 Rs. 35,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Qamar Ali Khan, PW-37 Rs. 300000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Junaid Hussain, PW-40 Rs. 3500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Bassam Sana, PW-41 Rs. 50,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Abida Nisar, PW-42 Rs. 1400000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Wilayat Shah, PW-43 Rs. 23200000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Azmat Hussain, PW-45 Rs. 10,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Aslam, PW-46 Rs. 400000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Akhtar Ali, PW-47 Rs. 12,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Sajjad, PW-48 Rs. 400000 Adil Butt, Abdullah Modarbat Nama + Cheque Abid Ali, PW-49 Rs. 600000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama+ Cheque Sajjad Hussain, PW-50 Rs. 1500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Malik Allah Yar, PW-55 Rs. 650000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Ashiq Ali, PW-57 Rs. 1100000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Ashfaq Ahmed, PW-62 Rs. 1500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Tahir Iqbal, PW-80 Rs. 700000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Habib-ur-Rehman, PW-81 Rs. 300000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Maliik Muhammad Riaz, PW-82 Rs. 3,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Ismail, PW-83 Rs. 3,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Amir Shabbir, PW-84 Rs. 300000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Abdur Rauf, PW-85 Rs. 600000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama M. Younas, PW-94 Rs. 250000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Reedi Gull, PW-95 Rs. 22,50,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Iftikhar Ali, PW-96 Rs. 250000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Qari Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi, PW-97 Rs 1400000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Arif Ullah, PW-98 Rs. 2,50,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Ibrahim, PW-99 Rs. 1,00,000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Muhammad Asim Mansoor, PW-100 9600000 Adil Butt Cheque Waheed-ur-Rehman, PW-101 Rs. 200000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Akseer Ahmad, PW-109 Rs. 5025000 Abdullah, Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Osama Inam, PW-111 Rs. 2830000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama + Cheque Lal Saeed, PW-117 Rs. 1500000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama Abdul Raziq Afridi, PW-135 Rs. 16650000 Adil Butt Modarbat Nama As such all the witnesses remain consistent on their mode of payment to the Adil Butt/appellant, execution of Modarba agreements, whereby no discrepancy has been noted in the testimony of these witnesses. Role of Muhammad Ejaz (Acquitted accused). The accused Muhammad Ejaz has invested Rs. 15 million and become partner of principal accused Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and he neither issued any cheque nor signeć the same even he has not collected any amount from the witnesses/victims. NAB Authorities have not highlighted or produced any incriminating material against him to connect with this case, even there is no claimant of payment against him.

10. While considering the above referred evidence, the star witness of this case i.e. PW-148 Iffat Shaheen, Deputy Director/I.O, NAB, who while appearing in this case contends that she received complaints against Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt, Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os), of NE Associates on 08.09.2014 through Ex.PW-148/1. The same was converted into investigation vide letter dated 02.12.2014 Ex.PW-148/11, she has arrested the appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi on the basis of warrant of arrest Ex.PW-148/3 on 03.06.2014, recorded the statements of all the victims in this case and took the possession of the record of SECP, whereby Hafiz Muhammad Wajid Wahidi, PW-106 has joined the investigation and provided the details of names of Modarba companies and modarbas registered with SECP, Islamabad, comprising of two (02) pages Ex.PW-106/1, which was taken into possession by the IO as Ex. PW-106/2 and as such the appellant company NE Associates was not registered with Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, which has been confirmed from the testimony of Registrar of SECP as Ex.PW141, as such the appellants have not cross-examined these witnesses, which confirmed that the appellants are doing the business of Modaraba under their own name without any registration from Modaraba Companies under Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980.

11. In order to reach at just decision of the case, we have gone through the Muzarbat Nama received by PWs and brought in the evidence, which are of similar pattern. For the sake of brevity, only agreement Ex. PW-132/5, is reproduced as under:-

12. The above mentioned document clearly spell out its condition with the titled Aqad sharai muzarbat, this aspect has also been referred in clauses, 2, 3, 4, 5 which clearly establishes that the executor, appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt as well as Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os) in different agreements received different amounts by claiming themselves to be partner in Modarba businesses. The wording used in this terms and conditions also cisclose that they have made assurance that the investment so made by different victims including the PWs have been regulated through Sherai Muzarbat, whereas in this regard the terms provided in the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, are as under:-

4. No company to operate without registration. No modaraba company shall operate without registration with the Registrar.

5. Eligibility for registration.-(1) A company slinll be eligible for registration as a modaraba company if it fulfills the following conditions, namely: (a) That it is registered under the Companies Act, 1913 (VIl of 1913), or is a body corporate formed under any law in force and owned or controlled, whether directly or through a company or corporation, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government; (b) That, being a company sorely engaged in the flotation and management of moderaba, it has a paid up capital of not less than, two and a half million rupees); (c) That none of its directors, officers or employees has been convicted of fraud or breach of trust of an offence involving moral tarpitude: (d) That none of its directors, officers or employees has been adjudged an insolvent or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, (e) That is promoters are, in the opinion of the Registrar, persons of means and integrity and have knowledge of matters which the company may have to deal with as a modaraba company; and (f) That, being a company also engaged in business other than floatation and management of modaraba, it has a paid up capital of such amount and of such nature as may be prescribed.

11. Authorization. The Registrar may, after obtaining from the Religious Board a certificate to the effect mentioned in section 10 and on being satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, grant a certificate in the prescribed form authorizing the floatation of modaraba on such conditions as he may deem fit, including conditions as to the business to be undertaken, expenses relating to the management of the Modaraba Fund, preservation of assets and other matters relating to the mode of management and distribution of profits: Provided that, before issuing the certificate of authorization, the Registrar may require the modaraba company to make such modifications, additions or omissions in the prospectus as the Religious Board may have indicated or as he may deem fit.

13. In view of above, it is necessary for every modaraba companies to be registered under the said law and shall follow the prerequisites provided in the said ordinance, as such evidence of Jawed Hussain, Registrar Modarba SECP, PW-141 confirmed that the appellant's company NE Associates, and NE Poultry have not registered under the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, rather the companies have separately been registered with Registrar of Firms of NE Poultry Private Limited.

14. The prosecution has produced Abdul Ghaffar, PW-108, Registrar of Firms, Islamabad, who presented the record of M/s NE Associates, application form for registration of Firm i.e. NE Associates Ex.PW-108/1, Photocopies of CNICs of Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused), Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Muhammad Zarab Khan and Ghulam Shabbir as Mark PW-108/A. PW-108/B, PW-108/C, PW-108/D and the certified copy of partnership deed Ex.PW-108/2, executed between Muhammad Ejaz and Muhammad Nauman Qureshi. Photocopy of lease agreement executed by Muhammad Ejaz one of the partner of NE Associates with Gulzar Ahmad Bhutta Special Attorney Mark PW-108/E and certified copy of Form C, Certificate of Registration of Firm NE Associates Ex.PW-108/3, this aspect confirms that the prosecution connected NE Associates with hideous crime and established that the companies, which were made by the accused persons were not registered with SECP, rather with Registrar of Firms, Islamabad, as such Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused) was also partner in the said Firm.

15. The prosecution has also produced the evidence of bank Record Keepers, comprising of Adeel Ahmad, Branch Services Officer, Meezan Bank Branch Choore Chowk Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi, who has provided the information of the Account No. 0805-0100465291, maintained by Muhammad Abdullah, P.O and produced bank statement w.e.f. 18.04.2011 to 28.09.2011 of the said account Ex. PW-136/2. Junaic Ahmed, PW-137, Operations Manager, Dubai Islamic Bank, I-9 Markaz, Islamabad has provided the details of account of Muhammad Abdullah, P.O. Similarly, Tajamal Hussain, PW-138, Banking Services Manager, Allied Bank Limited Civil Centre Melody Market, G-6, Islamabad has provided the information regarding account No. 0010000145770015 titled NE Associates, opened by Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Muhammad Ejaz, whereby he produced SS Card Ex.PW-138/1, Customer profile of N.E Associates Ex.PW-138/2, Ex.PW-138/3, Ex.PW-138/4, KYC Form of N.E Associates Ex.PW-138/5. The partnership resolution Ex.PW-138/7, bank statement for the period started from 04.02.2010 to 06.07.2014, Ex.PW-138/12 and details of the cheques, which were deposited and encashed through different cheques and banking instruments Ex.PW-138/13 to Ex.PW-138/66 and confirms that millions of transaction were made in the said account, which were encashed by both the accused Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and Muhammad Ejaz (acquitted accused).

16. The prosecution has also produced Atif Hameed, PW-139, Branch Manager, MCB Branch, Rawalpindi, who has produced the bank statement of Account No. 0604606791004922 titled N.E Sugar, Ex.PW-139/9, opened by Abdul Manan along with details of deposited cheques Ex.PW-139/11 to Ex. PW-139ZA

18. The prosecution has produced Mohsin Saleem, PW-140, Branch Operations Manager, Stock Exchange Branch Markaz, Islamabad has brought the information of Account No. 4703-6 titled Muhammad Ejaz Ex.PW-140/1 and the bank statement Ex.PW-139/7 along with details of deposited cheques of different dates Ex.PW-140/3 to Ex.PW-140/12.

17. While referring to all these admitted evidence on record, it appears that Muhammad Nouman Qureshi is a key person, who is running the affairs of NE Associates, NE Poultry and all other related business, which have been used in these cases to lure the general public for the purpose of investment in concept of Muzarba, though on detail scrutiny of each and every document on record as well as the statements of prosecution witnesses, it has been established that 15 PWs have specified the role of Muhammad Nouman Qureshi for his involvement in luring the individuals for investment in his business with assurance that all the persons and individuals will get handsome profit. All these issues have been confronted to Muhammad Nauman Qureshi in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C in shape of 167 questions, whereby relevant details have been provided in answer to 166 question, which is as under:- Q.166. Have you anything else to say? Ans. I established a partnership firm under the name and style of NE Associates and got the same registered in the year 2006. In the same year I got the said firm registered in U.K also. I visited U.K and successfully obtained order for export of Food and beverages between the year 2006 to 2008, my business of export of fruit and juices ele, got expanded as the was a valuable demand of the said items in UK and I earned a handsome amount from my said business. In the year 2008, I stopped exporting all other items to U.K except the export of juices. Besides this I started business of sale purchase of sugar also in local market, since the said business of sugar was also very successful, I successfully obtained the tender of supply of 500 M.T sugar from IDCP in the year 2010. The value of this tender was approximately rupees three crores, I earned a handsome income from the sugar business in the year 2010. Again in Nov, 2010 I obtained another tender from TDCP for supply of 2550 MT sugar with collaboration of another company namely M/S Al-Huda Pharma. The value of this tender was more than twenty crore rupees. Due to this above said successful business of sugar and export of juices my firm M/S NE: Associates earned a name not only in Pakistan but also abroad. It is worth mentioning here that the turn over of my firm for the year 2010 was more than rupees eight crore, which fact is evident from my business account MCB Melody Islamabad which forms the part of Reference in volume-3. Since I had earned a handsome income from my above said business is I decided to expand my business and made investment in real estate sector in the year 2011 which also proved very successful. From the income of real estate I purchased poultry controlled shed at Patoki in the year 2011 for a sum of rupees 3,45,00000/-, I upgraded the poultry shed after purchase of the same which fact is endorsed by PW-93 in his cross-examination. In the month of May, June, 2011, I purchased a residentual plot in auction from CDA. My total earning during the year 2011 was more than rupees 25 crore. I during my investigation handed over the proof of my investment in real estate at Ghauri Town Islamabad and produced witness also before her. In January, 2012 I entered into a joint venture regarding four housing projects with Falcon City, Omega City, Paradise City, Multan Hashmi Garden for which I produced documentary evidence before the I.O. Before producing the NAB/D.G NAB Rawalpindi in the year 2014 highlighting that Shahid Jamal owner of Ali Associates etc; had swindled my investments. I also made complaints against Aksheed Hussain as neither he was returning my juice factory nor the amount of rupees ten crores. During my business of purchase and supply or sugar, in the year 2011 Abdullah and Abdul Manan absconding co-accused met me and showed their willingness to do business of sugar with me, I made certain transactions of sale of sugar to them. In August 2011, I submitted papers with SECP for intended registration of NE Poultry Pvt Ltd and NE Foods Pvt. Ltd. In September, 2011, it came to my knowledge from different quarters that Abdullah and his brother are giving wrong impress to their acquaintances who had religious affiliations with their family to the effect that they are partners of NE Associates. I further came to know that they have made agreements also with various people wrongly posing themselves to be associates of M/S NE Associates. Upon which I forthwith reported the matter with PS Westridge Rewalpindi and gave an application against them. When Abdullah came to know about my above said application against him, he in presence of respectable accepted his illegality and promised to handover all those agreements to me and he also promised to close the bank accounts in Mezan Baak which he had got opened by giving a wrong impression to the bank authorities that I had given him an authority for opening of the account. I will produce the said applications which I had given to the police station. After few days Abdullah himself got closed the bank account. The witness of Mezan Bank also verified this fact. Afterward Abdullah handed over a number of about 100 fake agreements to me which I handed over to my counsel namely Azfar Ameen Advocate. The I.O recovered the same from the office of Mr. Azfar Ameen which were handed over to him for proceeding against Abdullah P.O for lodging criminal case against him. In July, 2012 Abdul Manan P.O again contacted me for purchase of sugar directly as according to him he had established a fresh business. Abdulluh had a bank account in Mezan Bank Islamabad and it shows that in the year 2011, he had earned rupees 5,4900000/- out of which he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,27,00000/- on different occasions for purchase of sugar from my firm. The same is part of reference vol-III, similarly from July, 2012 to August, 2013, a sum of Rs. 6,48,00000/- were transferred in the account of my firm regarding purchase of sugar which transaction is also available in Vol-III of the reference. I.O has also admitted during cross-examination that no transaction what so ever had taken place between myself and Abdullah or Abdul Manan accused/P.O before the year 2011. Similarly, no agreement or letter of employment is on record to establish my link with the same co-accused other than the business of sugar. Since I had given applications against Shahid Jamal and Aksheed Hussain, the NAB authorities make V.R with them and by way of recovering a meager amount from them they were let off ignoring the hard fact that in those housing projects I had capital investment which along with the profit earned out of those projects was given to them forever. The said two persons happily deposited the amount of VR and swindled the capital investment and future profits belonging to me which I had earned out of my hard work in years. It is worth mentioning here that during the transactions made between myself and Abdullah I had been giving guarantee cheques to him in order to ensure that I would pay the amounts in-questions to him and it was for this reason, that no stamp of my firm was ever affixed on the said cheques. Said Abdullah misused the said cheques for which I lodged civil suit also against him which is pending adjudication at Islamabad. I was arrested in this case. I am behind the bars since then. I have already suffered the rigors of jail due to which my school going children have also suffered. I am a victim of fraud by myself, but NAB has posed me in a manner as if I am a criminal I pray for mercy to be taken upon me and my family and plead acquittal.

18. In view of above stance taken by Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, he has highlighted a specific plea in terms of Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as such prosecution has discharged the onus in terms of Article 177 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 qua the allegation made against Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, therefore, it is now his turn to defend himself or escape from liability, which is an existence, as such there is no denial that appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, has a relationship with M/s NE Associates being its partner in the partnership Firm registered in his name and he was actively involved in the transaction on behalf of NE Associates. With reference to the fraud played by the principal accused Mohammad Nauman Qureshi and his other subordinates including accused Adil Butt, Muhammad Ejaz, Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os).

19. The appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi has denied the employments of Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os) at any post in the N.E Associates while answering to question No.6 on the ground that the prosecution did not produce any agreement regarding employment, nor produced any job letter or partnership deed or any single document to prove that Muhammad Abdullah or Abdul Manan has any post or partnership in the Firm NE Associates, but at the same time the appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi acknowledges that the accused Muhammad Abdullah has misused, the name of his Firm by using letter pads and stamps of NE Associates, but in detail scrutiny, we were not convinced that how appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi can wriggle out from the working of those two proclaimed offenders, who have received millions of rupees on behalf of NE Associates with the help of Adil Butt, appellant. Even the appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi has acknowledged the signing of Mudarba agreements only with one Abdul Hafeez, PW-73 out of 148 prosecution witnesses while answering to question No. 7 in the following manner:- I did not issue any Modarba agreements to anyone, prosecution produced only 1-PW out of 900 complainants and 148 PWs, which is PW-73, who has such type of agreement.

20. We have gone through the statement of Abdul Hafeez, PW-73, who stated that he went to the office of NE Associates situated at Melody, where he met with Abdullah (PO) and Nouman Qureshi, whereby Muhammad Nouman Qureshi told him that he is running business of sugar, juices, poultry sheds and dairy. He also told him that they are doing business of Modarba, he ensured that they are giving 55% profit on total investment. PW-73 has given the cheque of Rs. 10 million through three cheques to Nouman Qureshi for investment in the said businesses. In lieu there, Muhammad Nouman Qureshi had also issued a guarantee cheque of Rs. 10 million and he has received a profit of Rs. 60 to 65 lac. As per statement, Muhammad Nouman Qureshi has informed him that they are closing the business with the outsider investors and they need more investment, thereupon he has invested additional five million rupees and in response to same, the appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi took back the cheque amounting to Rs. 10 million as earlier he has issued to Abdul Hafeez, PW-73 as guarantee Ex.PW-73/1, whereafter PW-73 has received an amount of Rs. 6 million from Muhammad Nouman Qureshi as a profit. He has also issued him Modarba agreement amounting to Rs: 10 million and five million Ex.PW-73/2 and Ex.PW-73/3 respectively, which were executed by Muhammad Nouman Qureshi. This aspect left nothing in favour of Muhammad Nouman Qureshi, who acknowledges the doing of business of Muderba in an illegal manner, especially when he has no permission or legal authority to claim himself to be in the business of Mudarba in terms of the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, as such the entire superstructure raised by the appellant by claiming himself to be innocent man stands demolished.

21. As such Muhammad Adil appellant in one of the appeal has admitted receiving of amounts for investment from PW-3, 4, 5, 7 to 31, 37, 40 to 50, 55, 57, 62, 80 to 85, 94 to 101, 109, 111, 117 and

135. There is no denial on record that Adil Butt has received cash amount and cheques from 48 prosecution witnesses, executed Mudarbat Namas of NE Associates, whereby all the prosecution witnesses are consistent in their statements that they have been induced through false representation made by Adil Butt, who lured them for investment under Mudarba scheme, despite having knowledge that such business is illegal and is not permitted under the law, and as such Muzarbat agreements have been executed by Adil Butt, which are apparent and admitted in documentary evidence. Even all the cheques/instruments exhibited during the course of evidence, which were given to the prosecution witnesses and same were handed over by Adil Butt, though the cheques were signed by Muhammad Nouman Qureshi, as such it is not the case of the Muhammad Nouman Qureshi that these cheques were not signed by him, therefore, in order to settle this question, NAB Authorities have produced handwriting expert Niaz Ali Akbar, Assistant Director Technical Wing, F.I.A, PW-145, who has evaluated and compared the routine specimen signatures of the appellant available on the covering letter and different documents while comparing the same with the question and prepared the report, which was exhibited as Ex.PW-145/1. The specimen signatures were taken in presence of Magistrate Ex. PW-145/2 and those signatures have been compared with Muzarbat Nama dated 01.06.2012, Ex.PW-73/2, Muzarbat Nama Ex.PW-73/3, Mozarbat Nama dated 10.07.2012, Ex.PW-145/4, Muzarbat Nama dated 18.05.2013, Ex.PW-145/6, which was already exhibited, Ex.PW-73/1. Cheque No. 2695343 Ex.PW-145/8, Cheque No. 2695342, Ex.PW-145/9, Cheque No. 2695340, Ex.PW-145/10, Cheque No. 5723210 already exhibited as Exp-110/1, Cheque No. 4423435 Ex. PW-145/11. Cheque No. 4423436 is Ex.PW-145/12, Cheque No. 3710264 already exhibited as Ex.PW-9/2, Cheque No. 4704816 already exhibited as Ex.PW-23/1, Cheque No. 0477297 already exhibited as Ex. PW-18/5, Cheque No. 0477296 already exhibited as Ex.PW-18/4, Cheque No. 4704820 already exhibited as Ex. PW-43/5, Cheque No. 2967613 already exhibited as Ex.PW-14/2, Cheque No. 4067336 is Ex.PW-145/13, Cheque No.4067335 is Ex-145/14, Cheque No.5329301 already exhibited as Ex.PW-68/3, Cheque No. 5329304 already exhibited as Ex-PW-68/1, Cheque No. 5329302 already exhibited as Ex.PW. 68/2, Cheque No. 5329305 already exhibited as Ex. PW-68/4, Cheque No. 5329303 already exhibited as Ex-PW-68/5, Cheque No. 4423443 already exhibited as Ex PW-1-16,, Cheque No. 4423444 already exhibited as Ex.PW. 1/15, Cheque No. 4423445 already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/17, Cheque No. 7796432 already exhibited as Ex.PW-5/3, Cheque No. 3710299 already exhibited as Ex.PW-10/2, Cheque No. 4704840 already exhibited as Ex PW-8/5, Cheque No. 1022672 already exhibited as Ex.PW-7/1, Cheque No. 3710273 already exhibited as Ex.PW-111/8, Cheque No. 3710272 already exhibited as Ex.PW-111/4, Cheque No. 6053862, Cheque No. 4704845 already exhibited as Ex.PW-100/23, Cheque No. 4704836 already exhibited as Ex. PW-100/24, Cheque No. 4704835 already exhibited as Ex.PW-100/25,Cheque No. 4704841 already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/3.

22. While comparing the above referred exhibited documentary evidence, all the signatures were matched with the specimens signatures and routine signatures of appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi, this documentary evidence proves one thing that the expert evidence of handwriting in terms of Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 established the relevancy of fact against the appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi and there is no doubt left in our mind that all these documents have been signed by Muhammad Nouman Qureshi, though this fact has not been admitted by him in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., except the document executed in favour of Abdul Hafeez, PW-73, hence admission made by the appellant in terms of Articles 78 and 81 of the the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., reflects clear cut involvement of Muhammad Nouman Qureshi in this hideous crime. The comparison of signatures made by the handwriting expert may on the comparative study is to be treated at par with other witnesses, as such, the handwriting expert report is corroborative piece of evidence, which has substantially been supported by the above mentioned documentary evidence, placed on record by the prosecution, hence, the prosecution has successfully proved the signatures through handwriting expert by application of Articles 59, 61, 78, 81 and 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, in line with the law referred in, PLD 2012 SC AJK 1 (Sohbat Ali v. Muhammad Alam), 1995 SCMR 246 (Tahira Dilawar v. Ghulam Samdani), 1999 SCMR 85 (Waqas Enterprises v. Allied Bank of Pakistan), even otherwise, this court can also compare the admitted signature of the appellants viz a viz the documentary evidence available on record and as such there is no denial that all material documents have been signed by the appellants as stated by the prosecution witnesses, hence, the test laid down in numerous judgments of the superior courts including PLD 1956 Dhaka 14 (Benoy Bhusan Sara v. Muhammad Abdul Samad alias Ladai Miah), 2003 MLD 1095 (Lt. Muhammad Sohail Anjum Khan v. Abdul Rasheed Khan), PLD 2006 Peshawar 208 (Masood Anwar v. Sabir Khan) gives ample powers to this court to satisfy its conscious qua the conduct of appellants by comparing the admitted record and signatures. The report has been corroborated with testimony of other prosecution witnesses, who have been defrauded at the hands of appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi, especially Abdul Hafeez, PW-73 who has corroborated and justified his case in line with the handwriting expert evidence. It is trite law that conviction cannot be based upon the sole testimony of handwriting expert as held in 2010 PCr.LI 1832 (Mir Fayaz Ahmed v. State), as such the minimum requirement has been fulfilled, therefore, there is nothing available on record, which creates an exception in favour of the appellants. This court is of the view that prosecution witnesses are reliable, who proved their cases and allegations against the appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi as well as against Adil Butt in accordance with law.

23. We have also gone through the testimony of Faisal Irshad, Assistant Commissioner, FBR, who has given his statement to the extent of Muhammad Nouman Qureshi and Muhammad Ejaz on the basis of income tax return filed in the year 2007, Ex.PW-77/1 and Ex.PW-77/2 on the basis of FBR record system. Even the statement of Sarfraz Ahmed, PW-78 has also provided the detail of tax return for the year 2013 of NE Associates Ex.PW-78/1 and Ex.PW-178/2, as such the cheque record if seen in the light of statement of appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi under Section 342 Cr.P.C, whereby the appellant claims to be a big businessman giving the details of his property and earning achieved from the business of sugar, but the tax returns are silent qua Mudarba business, hence this organized crime played by the appellant Muhammad Nauman Qureshi, Adil Butt, Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os) spelled out cheating of public at large through fraudulent and dishonest means whereby the appellants lured different individuals to deprive them from their valuable properties including cash, hence, the appellants have induced the individuals through planning and organized manner with intent to cause damage and harm.

24. In order to understand this proposition, the definition of Section 415 P.P.C read with explanation A and F, is reproduced hereunder:- Section 415 P.P.C Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person [or any other person] in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. (a), A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay, A cheats. (f) A, intentionally deceives Z, into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money; A not intending to repay it. A cheats. While applying the above referred definition in the light of explanation referred as A and F there is nothing left to disbelieve that appellants have committed intentional fraud by inducing the prosecution witnesses from their hard earned money.

25. We have also been guided by the principles settled in 2020 SCMR 321 (Dr. Waqar Hameed v. The State and another), PLD 2013 Karachi 357 (Naseem Abdul Sattar and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others), 2004 MLD 1403 (Syed Fayyaz Hussain Zaidi v. S.H.O Police Station Chehliyak, Multan and another), 1995 SCMR 1249 (Chaudhry Shujat Hussain v. The State), PLD 1964 Dhaka 600 (Zahid Hasan Khan and others v. The State-Opposite Party), qua the ingredients of Section 415 P.P.C as a key offence in this case, hence we are of the unanimous view that appellant Muhammad Nouman Qureshi, Muhammad Abdullah and Abdul Manan (P.Os) were jointly running the show under the name and style of NE Associates, though the accused persons Muhammad Nouman Qureshi and Muhammad Ejaz were partners in the said NE Associates, as such Muhammad Ejaz has not signed any document available on record not a single prosecution witnesses has stated that he has paid the amount or he has induced or lure any person for investment in the Mudarba business nor any cheque was issued by him, in this background Muhammad Ejaz has rightly been acquitted by the Trial Court on the basis of non-availability of incriminating evidence against him, whereas Muhammad Nouman Qureshi and Adil Butt have rightly been convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of overwhelming evidence. Both the appellants have failed to create any single exceptions or doubt in the prosecution evidence, in which all the documentary evidence has been proved against the appellant, even verified from the testimony of prosecution witnesses on each account against Muhammad Nouman Qureshi and Muhammad Adil Butt,' who are partner in crime and looted huge sum of money from public at large.

26. Now comes to the sentences portion of the judgment impugned before this Court, which reveals that the Accountability Court has taken a lenient view against Muhammad Adil Butt, who has been convicted and sentenced to 07 years R.I with fine of Rs. 10 lac under Section 9(a)(ix) of NAO, 1999, though this portion of sentence is not in line with the principle settled in such type of cases. Even the NAB Authorities have filed Crl. Appeal No.181/2020 for enhancement of sentence of accused Muhammad Adil Butt the ground that he has looted and defrauded 48 individuals in this case and deprived them from their hard earned money but he has been awarded sentence of 07 years R.I with fine of Rs.10/- Lac which is on lower side and is not in consonance with the role assigned to him by the prosecution witnesses, in this backdrop, where both the appellants have equally participated in the crime, which has been proved against them through unimpeachable, direct evidence, hence, no exception could be taken to benefit Adil Butt/appellant in this case.

27. For what has been discussed above, Cri. Appeal No. 167/2020, Crl. Appeal No. 179/2020, Crl. Appeal No. 180/2020 are hereby DISMISSED while maintaining the conviction of appellants namely Muhammad Nouman Qureshi and Muhammad Adil Butt. However, Crl. Appeal No.181/2020 is ALLOWED and sentence of Muhammad Adil Butt, respondent is hereby enhanced from 07 years R.I to 12 years R.I with fine of Rs. 10 Million. In case of non-payment of fine, he shall further undergo for six months Simple Imprisonment with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused Muhammad Ejaz as such there is not an iota of evidence available on record and NAB Authorities have also not produced any incriminating evidence against Muhammad Ejaz, except that he was partner in the NE Associates but he has not participated in the business. Even otherwise he has spent two years imprisonment during the pendency of this Reference, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment of Trial Court, who has rightly acquitted the said accused by extending benefit of doubt. MH/31/Isl. Order accordingly.