2023 PLP 28 (MLD)

Through the instant petition, the petitioner, Arif Pervaiz, has sought suspension of his sentence passed against him as seven (7) years' Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) and fine of Rs.22,00,000/- and in default of the same to further undergo six months' Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) by the Accountability Court No. III, Lahore vide Judgment dated 16.2.2022 in Reference No.98 of 2007 in respect of offences under section 9(a), (xii) read with clauses (iii), (iv), (vi) and (ix) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 punishable under section 10 of NAO, 1999.

2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of Muhammad Rafique Shad Special Officer, Income Tax Department, Circle 04, Zone-C, Lahore, a criminal case vide FIR No.78 of 2001 was registered with the Police Station FIA/SBC, Lahore, in respect of offences under sections 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, (Act No.II), 1947, with the allegation that the petitioner along with his co-accused misappropriated Government funds by preparing forged and fake income tax refund vouchers. Subsequently, the case was got transferred to Accountability Courts, Lahore under section 16-A(a) of the Ordinance. The role assigned to the petitioner during the occurrence is that he received certain vouchers from co-accused Habib ur Rehman and deposited in his own bank accounts as well as in his benami/fake accounts. Investigation was conducted and on the basis of material and evidence collected, a Reference No.98/2007 was prepared and filed to the Court concerned within the meaning of section 18(g) read with section 24(b) of the Ordinance and the learned trial Court ultimately convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the above stated terms.

3. In pursuance of order of this Court dated 24.3.2022, the respondents have filed report and parawise comments.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and perused the available record minutely.

5. It has been noticed that after filing an appeal against his conviction and sentence the petitioner has also lodged an application under section 25(b) of the Ordinance for plea bargain before the Director General NAB, Lahore. Along with the said application, the petitioner has also submitted a pay order in favour of the Chairman NAB amounting to Rs.2.2 Million, which was determined by the learned trial Court as his liability. Pendency of such application before the Chairman NAB has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents/NAB. The finalization of the proceedings under the plea bargain, would require some time, on completion whereof the petitioner in any case would have to be released, therefore, in our view, a case of grant of bail is made out in favour of the petitioner. Guidance is sought from Manzoor Hussain Shahant v. National Accountability Bureau and another (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 324).

6. Resultantly, by allowing this petition the sentence of petitioner is suspended during the pendency of his criminal appeal and he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Five Hundred Thousands only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioner shall join proceedings of appeal before this Court on each and every date of hearing fixed therein. MH/A-123/L Bail allowed.