2018 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.

Appellants have assailed the judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed by Accountability Court No.II at Karachi in Reference No.16/2016, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 10 of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999 read with Serial No.2 of the Schedule of offences appended with the Ordinance and sentencing appellant No.1 to suffer R.I. for ten years while the appellant No.2 to suffer R.I. for five years; both appellants to pay fine of Rs.30.485 million and in case of default thereof each appellant to undergo R.I. for two years more. Appellants having committed an offence under section 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 were also convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently; both appellants to seize to hold public office if any held by them and disqualified for ten years to be reckoned from date they are released after serving sentence; for seeking, from being elected, chosen, appointed, nominated as member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or any of the Province. Both appellants however were held entitled for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, facts are that on suspicious transaction report received to NAB against sons and daughters of appellant No.1 Mushtaq Ali Solangi, Ex-Mukhtiarkar Gadap Town alleging five bank accounts No.08-7038453-01, 08-7038445-01, 08-7038461-01, 08- 7038437-01 and 01-5873029-01, having account titles Quratul-Ain Solangi, Sasui Solangi, Sibte-Hassan, Ummul Baneen and Ali Harab respectively, in different branches of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd Karachi with high volume of credit transactions; enquiry initiated was subsequently converted into investigation which revealed that Mushtaq Ali Solangi joined government service on 01.06.1972 as clerk and retired on 31.12.2013 as Mukhtiarkar, during this period from 1992 to 2008 he earned Rs.1.926 million as total salary. Investigation further revealed that appellant No.2 Ali Harab, who is son of co-accused/appellant No.1, opened bank account on 15.02.2008 in Standard Chartered Bank, Defence Branch, Karachi when he was about 23 years old and deposited cash of Rs.30.485 million from 15.02.2008 to 22.08.2008 having no source of income being dependent on co-accused, hence appellants with connivance of each others have deposited an amount of Rs.30.485 million in bank account bearing No.01-5873029-01 of appellant No.2, the funds then were transferred to earlier stated bank accounts in name of other sons and daughters of appellant No.1, hence appellants were alleged to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices and offence as defined under section 3 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, therefore Reference was filed.

3. During the course of investigation, Investigation Officer recorded statements of seven prosecution witnesses namely 1) Abdul Salam, City Surveyor Office, District Larkana, 2) Aqeel Ahmed Chishti, Accounts Officer, A.G. Sindh, Karachi, 3) Syed Jawad-ul- Hassan, Branch Operation Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, DHA Shahbaz Branch Karachi, 4). Usman Arif, Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, DHA Phase-V Branch, Karachi, 5) Nasir Shehzad, Assistant Director/I.O, NAB Karachi, 6). Sarvech Shaikh, Assistant Director/I.O. NAB Karachi and 7). Baqa Muhammad, Deputy Assistant Director/I.O. NAB Karachi.

4. Prosecution examined PW-1 Aqeel Ahmed Chishti at Exh.6, PW-2 Abdul Salam at Exh.7, PW-3 Usman Arif at Exh.8, PW-4 Syed Jawad ul Hassan at Exh.9 and PW-5 Investigation Officer Naeemullah Jatoi at Exh.10 and closed its side. Statements of accused persons under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exhibits 12 and 13 respectively. The appellant No.1 examined himself on Oath at exhibit 14, then defence closed its side.

5. Learned counsel for appellants has vehemently contended that the prosecution has mala fide involved the appellants in the Reference under section 9(a) of NAB Ordinance and Anti Money Laundering Act 2010 and the allegations are false; appellant No.1 joined government service on 01.06.1972 and retired on 31.12.2013; the prosecution did not bring on record entire salary earned by the appellant during that period; prosecution also failed to bring material evidence against the appellant No.1 to the effect of his involvement in any corrupt practice during his service. That it is the duty of the prosecution to find out what were the lawful assets acquired by appellant No.1 at the time of joining government services and subsequently accumulated other pecuniary assets till 31.12.2013 but nothing is available with the prosecution in this regard. It is argued that Exh.6/1 produced by PW-1 shows details of salary drawn by the appellant No.1 but not for the whole period of his service, reliance of prosecution upon self-generated document is unwarranted; that the documents produced by PW-2 not claimed as forged document by the prosecution as the owner of the property were two ladies but not examined by the investigation officer, which proves mala fide on the part of prosecution, besides he also did not examine the vendee who was prime witness of prosecution to ascertain the mode of payment of the property; that PW-3 Branch Manager Produced Account Opening Forms of four family members of appellant No.1 but investigation officer neither made them accused nor cited as a witness even no allegation was levelled against them; that PW-4 Branch Operation Manager and only on the basis of his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., investigation officer implicated both the accused/appellants in the reference; that surprisingly investigation officer has only calculated amount deposited during 6 months but did not show any withdrawal from the said accounts; that investigation officer did not maintain any transparency while conducting investigation and only focused that accused has deposited about 30 million in his bank account, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the transactions made in the account of appellant/accused No.2 was the amount from unknown source to benami accounts which are disproportionate to his known sources of income; that before filing of the reference, inquiries were initiated against the appellant/accused No.1 which have been withdrawn by the NAB authorities and the instant reference is just based on mala fide intention on the basis of statement of PW Javed, the prosecution has failed to prove known sources of assets of the accused under section 9(a)(v) of NAB Ordinance, 1999 except the statement of investigation officer there is no evidence against the appellants hence the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof under section 14(c) of NAB, Ordinance 1999. In support of his contentions learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 2005 SC 63, 2013 PCr.LJ 1607, 2009 SCMR 79, 2011 SCMR 136, PLD 2011 SC 1144 and 2007 MLD

910. He further contended that since prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any material to prove that the account maintained/operated by appellant No.2 is found unknown source to benami account which is disproportionate to known source of income of appellant No.1 but it was the hard earning of the appellant No.2 from the Auto Car Business.

6. Learned counsel for appellants further contended that impugned judgment misinterpreted the provisions of section 14 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999; that the charge framed was defective; that under section 3(a) of A.M.L. Act, 2010 alleged possession/acquiring of property must be proceed of crime, it was mandatory upon prosecution to prove that alleged possession of property/assets is crime proceed and unless said crime is proved appellant cannot be convicted under AML Act, 2010; that salary statement of appellant was incomplete therefore could not be relied upon to convict the appellant; that pecuniary burden of proof is upon prosecution and not upon the defence; prosecution could not prove that amount deposited or withdrawn by appellant No.2 has any nexus with appellant No.1; that learned trial Court has unjustifiably convicted the appellants without appreciating the evidence brought on record, therefore; impugned judgment is liable to be set aside with acquittal of appellants.

7. On the other hand, learned ADPG, NAB has vehemently controverted the arguments of appellants' counsel and argued that according to the STR received by NAB through FMU against the appellant No.1 and his daughters and sons, established that the high volume transactions were observed by the system of the bank which did not match with known your customer profile of all account holders; reference was filed after investigation; that the prosecution has fully established its case by examining five witnesses who all have supported the prosecution version; it was admitted by the appellant No.1 in his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. that his all children are jobless having no source of income even it is also an admitted fact that accused persons neither produced defence witnesses who purchased house from his wife nor any evidence to show appellant No.2 was ever associated with Reena Motors or carried on his business under the name and style of Harab Autos, even both the appellants failed to produce any income tax return or wealth statement hence it is established that huge transactions made in the account of accused No.2 is with connivance of appellant No.1 who deposited and transferred ill-gotten amount from unknown sources, therefore both the accused who are present appellants have committed offence under section 9(a)(v) of NAB Ordinance, 1999 and liable to be convicted under section 10 and Schedule thereto. Furthermore both the accused have also committed an offence defined under section 3 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 punishable under Section 4 of the Act, hence judgment recorded by the Court below is just and proper and liable to be maintained. In support of his contention he placed reliance on 2010 SCMR 1697 and 2006 PCr.LJ 1409 Karachi.

8. To properly appreciate, we feel it quite appropriate to refer the charge framed by trial Court, against both the appellants i.e. appellant No.1 as well his son Ali Harab Solangi who was not in any government job but being son of main accused, was charged:- "You accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi Ex-Mukhtiarkar Gadap Town joined the government service on 01.06.1972 as a clerk and retired on 31.12.2013 as a Mukhtiarkar, you had earned Rs.1.926 million as total salary during such period, however, a high volume of credit transaction have been found in the five bank accounts bearing numbers 08-7038453-01 087038445 01, 08-7038461-01, 08-7038437-01 and 01-5873029-01 maintained by your real sons and daughters in different branches of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd Karachi which did not match with the KYC (know your customer) Profiles of those account holders. You accused Ali Harab is real son of accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi when you was about 23 years old and having not known source of income and dependent on your father namely accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi, you had also opened a bank account on 15.02.2008 in Standard Chartered Bank, Defence Branch, Karachi wherein cash amount of Rs.30.485 millions from 15th February 2008 to 22nd August 2008 were deposited. You both above named accused in connivance with each other have deposited an amount of Rs.30.485 millions in the bank account bearing No.01-5873029-01, wherefrom the funds were later on transferred to the accounts of other sons and daughters of you accused No.1, the aforesaid deposits in the account of accused No.2 is disproportionate to the known sources of income of accused No.1, which you could not reasonably account for. Thus, you both have committed an offence of corruption and corrupt practices as envisaged under section 9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, punishable under section 10 and Sr. No.2 of the Schedule of offences appended with the NAB Ordinance, 1999. Further you both have also committed offence defined under section 3 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 punishable under section 4 of the said Act within the cognizance of this Court."

9. Prima facie, the case of NAB authorities against the appellant No.1 has been in two parts i.e:- "a high volume of credit transaction have been found in the five bank accounts bearing numbers 08-7038453-01, 0-87038445-01, 08-7038461-01, 08-7038437-01 and 01- 5873029-01 maintained by your real sons and daughters in different branches of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd Karachi" AND that: "appellant No.1 while in service in Revenue Department accumulated property beyond his means" The charge against the appellant No.2 however was that: "appellant No.2 opened a bank account on 15.02.2008 in Standard Chartered Bank, Defence Branch, Karachi wherein cash amount of Rs.30.485 millions from 15th February 2008 to 22nd August 2008 were deposited"

10. The first part of the charge against the appellant. No.1 appears to have never been seriously processed by the prosecution itself because it is a matter of record that the prosecution did not join all the five (05) account holders, referred in first part of the charge, as accused nor as witnesses. Here direct reference to section 9(a)(v) of the Ordinance, being relevant is made hereunder:- "if he or any of his dependants or benamidars owns, possesses, or has acquired right or title in any 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 (reasonably) account for; or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income" From above, it is quite obvious that said provision is not limited to the 'blood-relations' alone but includes 'benamidars' too who can well by 'anybody'. Needless to add that within meaning of Section 9(a)(v) of the Ordinance any such person would be an accused if prosecution establishes him to be falling within meaning of such dependant or benamidar which shall always require discharge of initial burden to extent of :- i) such person is either dependant or benamidar; ii) he possess, owns or acquires right or a title which is disproportionate to known source of such person; and iii) he cannot reasonably account for the same; Thus, to prove such charge, the prosecution would not stand absolved from its obligation to discharge initial burden by alleging such status alone but would be required to prove other two ingredients as well because it is by now a well settled principle of law that "mere possession of any pecuniary resource or property is by itself not an offence but it is failure to satisfactorily account for such possession of pecuniary resource or property that makes the possession objectionable and constitutes the relevant offence". Reference, if any, may be made to the cases of:- Ghani-ur-Rehman v. NAB (PLD 2011 SC 1144) '

6. The law now stands settled that in order to prove commission of an offence under section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 it has to be proved by the prosecution as to what were the known sources of income of the accused person at the relevant time and that the resources or property of the accused person were disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is after such proof has been led and the necessary details have been provided by the prosecution that the onus shifts to the accused person to account for such resources or property because mere possession of any pecuniary resource or property is by itself not an offence but it is failure to satisfactorily account for such possession of pecuniary resource or property that makes the _possession objectionable and constitutes the relevant offence." The deliberate omission on part of the prosecution in not providing an opportunity of an explanation to such five account holders was always fatal for holding such charge as 'not proved' which could either be dealing with such persons as 'accused' least a 'witness' at initial stage of investigation. The prosecution can claim no advantage of its own wrongs or omissions rather would face the consequence which would surely tilt the scale of Criminal Administration of justice in favour of the accused. In the case of Ghani-ur-Rehman supra it was also held as: "In the case in hand the appellant's sources of income had never been brought on the record by the prosecution and had never been quantified by it at any stage of this case and therefore , it was not possible for the learned trial court to conclude or to hold that the appellant or his dependants or so-called benamidars owned or possessed assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to the appellant's income. It is unfortunate that the investigating officer of this case as well those responsible for prosecution of this case before the learned trial court had, probably on account of their sheer incompetence, utterly failed to do the needful in this regard and it is regrettable that even the learned trial court as well the learned appellate court had completely failed to advert to this critical aspect of the present case."

11. Now, we would take up second allegation/charge against the appellant No.1 as well allegation against the appellant No.2 because second allegation against appellant No.1 is, accumulating property beyond his means while serving in Revenue Department. There can be no denial to well established principle of law that even in such like offences under NAB law, the initial burden is upon the prosecution and only after discharge thereof, it is the accused who would be required to satisfactorily account for which too not beyond reasonable doubt but reasonably. We are guided in such view with the case of Wahid Bakhsh Baloch v. State (2014 SCMR 985) wherein it is held as:- "

10. In terms of the afore-referred charging provision, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was guilty of any of the offences for which he was being charged." We would also not hesitate in saying that it shall not be the claim of the prosecution that accused has/had acquired property beyond his means during service period but would require details thereof whether claiming it in name of dependant or benamidar (section 9(a)(iv) of Ordinance); known sources of accused and reasonable failure of accused to account for the same. Guidance is obtained from the case of Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The State and another (2010 SCMR 1697) relevant at page-1704, wherein it is held as:- "It is pertinent to mention here that in order to prove the case is the duty and obligation of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence which are as follows:- i) It must establish that the accused was holder of a public office. ii) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property which were found in his possession. iii) It must be proved as to what were his known sources of income. iv) It must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income;

12. Let's see what the prosecution brought on record to discharge initial burden. The PW-5 Naeemullah Jatoi, Dy. Assistant Director, NAB Hyderabad, did investigation and in his examination-in -chief stated as:- "The Standard Chartered Bank raised a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) to the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU), State Bank of Pakistan. The FMU subsequently forwarded said STR to the Chairman NAB against accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi and his sons and daughters. I produce original report of FMU as Exh.10/1 and say it is same and correct. On 26th August 2015, Director General NAB Sindh Karachi has authorized me an investigation in the said matter. I produce authorization letter as Exh.10/2 and say it is same and correct. During the course of investigation, I had recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. and prepared seizure memo. During the investigation, it was revealed to me that accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi was appointed as a Clerk in the Government service on 1st June 1972 and retired from the service on 31st December 2013. According to the record, the Accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi earned salary amounting to Rs.1.926 Million w.e.f. 1st June 1972 to 2008. Accused Ali Harb son of accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi opened an account on 15.02.2008 in Standard Chartered Bank, Defence Branch Karachi, when he was 23 years old and dependent upon his father. From 15.02.2008 to 22.08.2008 cash amount Rs.30.485 Million was deposited in his account. Both accused persons were provided opportunity to justify such transactions but they both failed to justify. Accused persons have committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices. On 16th February 2016 both accused persons were arrested by me and subsequently they were sent to judicial custody. On conclusion of the investigation, I have submitted my investigation report with the recommendation to file a reference against both the accused persons. Prima facie, the prosecution collected no material whatsoever to establish that the appellant No.1 has/had any property in his own name which is not proportionate to known source of the income of the appellant No.1 but attempted to transaction in account of appellant No.2 (son of appellant No.1) as that acquired/possessed by appellant No.1 in name of his son (dependant). We would not hesitate for a single moment that in absence of the details of property in name of the accused (public servant) himself but in name of dependants or benamidars the burden becomes a little heavier because the prosecution would not only require what held while discussing allegation No.1 against appellant No.1 but above criterion too. It is worth to make it clear here that prosecution never properly established the status of the appellant No.2 to be 'dependant' upon appellant No.1 except status of appellant No.2 to be 'real son' and even the Investigating Officer deliberately not investigated the specific claim of the appellant No.2 to be `independent' and to have acquired amount by business, started through sale proceeds of his mother and aunt. The position will become rather easy for appreciation with reference to admissions, made by the PW-5 in his cross-examination which are: . . . It is correct to suggest that Exh.9/1 i.e. Account Opening Form reflects the of business as HARAB AUTOS and the nature of business, wholesale of Auto parts and Car Accessories. Voluntarily says during the course of investigation accused failed to provide any evidence in respect such business." This was admission that account was in name of business wherein the appellant No.2 has claimed to be a partner and even the proprietor of such business did support such status and claim of the appellant No.2. This even was admitted by the PW-5 in his cross-examination as: "It is correct to suggest that accused Ali Harab disclosed that since 2007 he is a partner of REENA MOTORS situated at Shahrah-e-Qaudeen Karachi. Voluntarily says he did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his statement. It is correct to suggest that the proprietor of Reena Motors namely Sohail Malik appeared before me and supported the statement of accused Ali Harab and they are partners of the business in car dealing. Further, it was also admitted by the PW-5 in his cross-examination that: "It is correct to suggest that one Sagar Ali appeared before me during the course of investigation and produced documents in respect of purchase of property by him from the wife and sister of the accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi against the sale consideration of Rs.18485000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty four Lacs and Eighty Five Thousands only) vide Sale Agreement dated 04.02.2008 and Sale Deed 21.09.2015. Voluntarily says not documentary evidence regarding proof of such payment has been produced by him or accused persons." Failure of Sagar to submit proof regarding payment of consideration was never sufficient to hold the seller accountable for such failure particularly when sale deed was also executed by the seller in favour of said Saghar. This even was admitted by the PW 5 as:- "The Sale Deed dated 21.09.2015 has been produced by PW Abdul Salam as Exh.7/3, It is correct to suggest that the purchaser namely Sagar Imdad appeared before me but he failed to produce documentary evidence regarding the payment of purchase of the property. I did not examine him under section 161, Cr.P.C. I did not serve notice upon Sagar Imdad for production of proof of the payment to the accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi." The above are sufficient that the appellant No.2 did attempt to satisfactorily explain the transaction in his account: as well his independent status for such amount but the investigating officer did not bother to properly attend such explanation nor even recorded the statements of such persons though these witnesses admittedly appeared before him. The Investigating officer made no effort to examine the wife and sister of the appellant No.1 so as to weigh whether it were they who gave the amount of sale proceeds to appellant No.2 or otherwise. Such attitude on part of the Investigating officer was never worth appreciating rather speaks volume of manner in which he (investigating officer) dealt with entrusted obligation to investigate the matter. This shall stand evident from another admission by the PW-5 that: "It is correct to suggest that my investigation is based upon FMU report as well as on the statement of PW Jawad- ul-Hassan. It is correct to suggest that FMU report is only information of the accounts numbers of the family of accused. Mushtaq Ali Solangi and name of the banks. No transaction has been mentioned therein, even there is no allegation levelled therein of corruption and corrupt practices. It is correct to suggest that except report of FMU (Exh.10/1), no other document or record has been provided by the Standard Chartered Bank against the accused persons in respect of corruption and corrupt practices." From above, it is quite obvious that reference was based on FMU only for which the PW-3 Usman Arif, Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, in his cross-examination stated that:- "I did not find any irregularity or illegality while opening of the aforesaid accounts and during operation of the accounts." "Being a Branch Manager since September 2013 neither I received any instruction/ direction from Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU) not sent any information to FMU to deliver information of suspicious transactions of the aforesaid accounts. I personally did not see any letter from FMU pertaining to the aforesaid transactions. I have not produced Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) to the I/O as forwarded by the FMU." "It is correct to suggest that it is not reflected from the aforesaid bank accounts that any amount has been transferred from the bank account of accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi. As per Anti Money Laundering Act, NAO, 1999, ATA Act, 1997 and the State Bank Prudential Regulations of the operations of the accounts and transactions, if the bank found any unusual and suspicious transaction in any account immediately intimate to Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU) State Bank of Pakistan. I did not see any document in the branch to show that bank itself raised any suspicion with regard to any transaction in the aforesaid accounts." These admissions were always sufficient to conclude that merely on basis of the FMU the prosecution was not justified to claim conviction when admittedly the prosecution never successfully discharged initial burden within meaning of settled criterion for such offence. Worth to appreciate that the appellants remained stuck with their first stand which even was disclosed to the investigating officer. This shall be evident from reference to statement of appellant Mushtaq Ali Solangi recorded under section 340, subsection (2), Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that:- "On 1st June 1972 I was appointed as a Clerk in Revenue Department at Larkana. I have passed Revenue Qualifying Department Examination (RQE) from Sindh Public Service Commission and promoted as a Mukhtiarkar during December 1999. My first posting was as Resident Magistrate Qamber @ Larkana. During 2001, my wife sold her property/plot admeasuring 400 Sq. yds situated at Sachal Colony Larkana for sum of Rs.1500000/-. I produce photocopy for the kind perusal of this Court. An another residential house bearing City Survey Nos.890/5 and 890/7 admeasuring about 1800 sq. fts, situated at Dart Muhallah Larkana against the sale consideration of Rs.18485000/- to one Sagar Unar as per Sale Agreement dated 04.02.2008. I produce the original Qabuliat/sale agreement and sale deed dated 22.9.2015 as Exh.14/1 and Exh.14/2 respectively. (original seen and returned). I say these are same and correct. A sum of Rs.1100000/- was initially paid to the co-accused Ali Harab from which he has opened his account whereas remaining sale consideration amounting to Rs.17385000/- was paid on various dates till June 2008. In the year 2012, an enquiry was initiated by the NAB authority against Rasool Bux Shaikh, myself and others. Being aggrieved from the said inquiry 1 had filed Constitutional Petitions No.3351 and 3352/2012 before the honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi. Besides, me Rasool Bux has also filed a Constitutional Petitions Nos.3302 and 3403/2012. During the pendency of the said petitions, the State Bank has issued notices to all banks with the name of accounts holders to get the status and information of their accounts vide letter dated 05.12.2012. Subsequently NAB authorities had closed said inquiries vide letter dated 19th July 2013. I produce certified copies of the aforesaid CPs along-with the order passed thereon as Exh.14/3 to Exh.14/6 respectively and say these are same and correct. I produce photocopy of letter dated. 05th December 2012 of the State Bank of Pakistan for kind perusal of this Court. In the year 2015, a Reference No.23/2015 was filed by the NAB against me and others, wherein same accounts were examined but the I/O did not make it part of the said reference as the earlier inquiry was closed accordingly. However, the instant reference pertains to the same accounts/inquiry against Rasool Bux, which is evident from the FMU report. I never handed over any ill-gotten money to my son Ali Harab and my other children. During my entire service, no inquiry ever held in respect of getting bribe or corruption committed by me. My department never received any complaint against me in this respect. The NAB has provided wrong details of my salary as 1.926 million. Similarly, the amount shown in the account of my son Ali Harab is incorrect, which is not reflecting from the statement of bank account. During the course of investigation, I had produced all the documents to prove my innocence specially the property documents sold out by my wife. My son Ali Harab completed his graduation in the year 2004-05, thereafter I tried my level best to get government service for him but failed subsequently the amount received from the property has been invested in the business established by him. Before establishing his own business my son was associated with Reena Motors as a partner and the owner of Reena Motors namely Malik Sohail appeared before the NAB and got recorded his statement in favour of my son but it was not considered. Similarly statement of Segar Imdad has not been taken into consideration by the NAB as both were favouring our defence. I retired from Government service on 31.12.2013 as Assistant Commissioner. At the time of my retirement department has issued no demand certificate and according to which no financial irregularities or losses sustained by the Government. I am absolutely innocent and committed no offence as alleged. I only provided good education and better brought up to my children. Neither me nor my family members possesses an immovable property either in Pakistan or outside the Pakistan The amount received/credited in the account of Ali Harab is from the inherited property from his mother and subsequently my other children got their due share from the said inherited property. I say I did nothing and whatever transaction shown in the account of Ali Harab comes from the inherited property as well as from his own business. The appellant No.2 also stuck with such justification while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. A direct reference to question-2 an answer thereof which are: "Q.No.02: During evidence, it is brought-on record that when you were about 23 years old and having no known source of income and only dependent on your father co-accused Mushtaq Ali Solangi, you had opened a bank account bearing No.01-5873029-01 on 15.02.2008 in Standard Charter Bank, Defence Branch, Karachi, wherein credited amount Rs.30.485 millions from unknown sources w.e.f. 15th February 2008 to 22nd August 2008, what do you say? Answer: It is incorrect and false. After my graduation Commerce in the year 2004-05, I started my earning through the business of car dealing upto 2007 remained with the business association of my partner Reena Motors Karachi and thereafter in the year 2008, I started my own business in the name and style of Harab Autos and I opened the account with the bank with the deposit of 1100000/- and time time in the business I have deposited and withdrawn amount. It is the nature of business to get advance deposited in the bank and thereafter withdraw the same of the purchase of the vehicle, spare parts and accessories of vehicles and a deliver to the persons. It is incorrect that I only deposited 30.485 million during the period of 15.02.2008 to 22.08.2008. The statement of my bank account clearly established that the amount has been deposited and withdrawn continuously till the closure of my account. The I/O malafidely and falsely only picked up the deposit of 06 months and not mentioned the withdrawal of the cash during the said period. I have sufficient amount of my own business on 15.02.2008 at the time of opening of account with the bank with the deposit of 1100000/- my mother sold out her plot in the year 2000 of Rs.1500000/- and then in the month of February 2008 my mother and my aunt sold out their joint property to one Mr. Sagar Imdad to the value of Rs.18485000/- and at the time of Sale Agreement 04.02.2008 he paid cash Rs.1100000/- and subsequently paid the sale consideration during 3/4 months as he was prominent landlord and businessmen of the area and finally sale deed was executed in the month of September 2015. After my graduation I started my earning and not remain dependent on my father Mushtaq Ali Solangi and I have not acquired any alleged amount from my father to deposit in the bank. My mother and aunt initially financially supported me to run my business, which has no concern with the ill-gotten money. Since my earning I myself started supporting my family along with my father." The failure of the investigating officer to properly conduct the material aspects of the case and reasonable explanation, furnished by the appellant No.2 for his account were/are sufficient to extend the benefit of the doubts to the appellants particularly when admittedly there was collected no material to show any corrupt practice or corruption on part of the appellant No.1 as is held in the case of Anwar Badshah v. Chairman, National Accountability Court (2013 PCr.LJ 1607) that:- "31. .... But, the prosecution had not produced any evidence worth its name before the learned trial court to establish any misuse of his authority by the appellant so as to develop and establish any nexus between misuse of his authority and amassing of wealth or accumulation of assests by him. In the complete absence of any evidence brought on the record by the prosecution in the above mentioned regard it could not be held by the learned Court below that the Charge, as framed against the appellant, stood established by the prosecution." According, we are of the clear view that impugned judgment is not falling within the parameters of settled criminal administration of justice, therefore appellants were acquitted by short order and these are the detailed reasons. MH/M-62/Sindh Appeal allowed.