2008 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL QADIR TAWAKKAL — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ISLAMABAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL QADIR TAWAKKAL — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ISLAMABAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL QADIR TAWAKKAL — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ISLAMABAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahab Sarki for Petitioner.
- In the above circumstances, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was already granted bail by this Court in the sum of Rs.597.3789 Million as the bail amount was fixed keeping in view the statutory provisions of section 5(7) of Ordinance IX of 1984, but he could not furnish the required surety as he could not arrange the surety of amount involved in the case. He has further stated that the petitioner may be allowed to remain on same bail but requested that surety amount may be reduced because after transfer of the case, the statutory provisions of the said Ordinance would not be applicable. The learned A.D.P.-G. has stated that as the bail has been granted by this court and no change in circumstances have taken place therefore he has no objection in allowing the petitioner to remain on same bail but the surety amount may be reduced to the amount which is involved in the Reference.
- We have examined the order granting bail to the petitioner. The reasons assigned for granting bail are sufficient to grant bail at this stage also. Furthermore the case has not proceeded from 1996 to this date. Even the Accountability Court has not completed the trial within a period of four years after receipt of the case and no witness has been examined by the court as per statement of learned Advocate for the petitioner and confirmed by A.D.P.-G. Under the law Accountability Court is required to complete the case within a period of 30 days as provided under section 16(a) of NAB Ordinance. The proceedings of the case have been delayed for a period of more than 10 years which amounts to abuse of process of law.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5(7)
National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.16(a)
Constitutional petition
Case, after investigation, was challaned in the Special Court created under Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984
Pending adjudication of the case petitioner moved bail application before High Court, which was granted
On the application of Chairman NAB, case was transferred to Accountability Court which was pending, but except framing of charge, no witness had been examined by the prosecution before the Accountability Court
Petitioner was already granted bail by the High Court, but he could not furnish the required surety as he could not arrange the surety of amount involved in the case
Reasons assigned for granting bail were sufficient to grant bail
Case had not proceeded since 1996
Even the Accountability Court had not completed the trial within a period of four years after receipt of the case and no witness had been examined by it
Accountability Court under the law was required to complete the case within a period of 30-days as provided under S.16(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Proceedings of the case had been delayed for a period of more than 10 years which amounted to abuse of process of law
Bail was granted to petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
1. Granted.
2. The petitioner is involved in Crime No.15/96 which was registered at police station F.LA.-C.B.C. Karachi on 27-8-1996. After investigation, the case was challaned in Special Court created under Ordinance IX of 1984. Pending adjudication of the case, the petitioner moved bail application before this Court, which was granted vide order dated 22-12-1999. On the application of Chairman NAB, the case was transferred to Accountability Court, Karachi which was received by the said Court on 2-8-2003. Since then, the case is pending. Except framing of charge, no witness has been examined by the prosecution before the Accountability Court. In the above circumstances, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was already granted bail by this Court in the sum of Rs.597.3789 Million as the bail amount was fixed keeping in view the statutory provisions of section 5(7) of Ordinance IX of 1984, but he could not furnish the required surety as he could not arrange the surety of amount involved in the case. He has further stated that the petitioner may be allowed to remain on same bail but requested that surety amount may be reduced because after transfer of the case, the statutory provisions of the said Ordinance would not be applicable. The learned A.D.P.-G. has stated that as the bail has been granted by this court and no change in circumstances have taken place therefore he has no objection in allowing the petitioner to remain on same bail but the surety amount may be reduced to the amount which is involved in the Reference. We have examined the order granting bail to the petitioner. The reasons assigned for granting bail are sufficient to grant bail at this stage also. Furthermore the case has not proceeded from 1996 to this date. Even the Accountability Court has not completed the trial within a period of four years after receipt of the case and no witness has been examined by the court as per statement of learned Advocate for the petitioner and confirmed by A.D.P.-G. Under the law Accountability Court is required to complete the case within a period of 30 days as provided under section 16(a) of NAB Ordinance. The proceedings of the case have been delayed for a period of more than 10 years which amounts to abuse of process of law. In these circumstances, we grant bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten Lacs only) on furnishing solvent surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The petition is allowed. H.B.T./A-130/K Bail granted.