2017 PLP 1666 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1666 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1666 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1666 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1666 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Misbah ul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Arif Mehmud Rana, Advocate Supreme Court along with Ms. Nazia Javed, Dy. Assistant Director, NAB for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 9.1.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 21541 of 2015)
Ss. 9(a)(v) & 25
Possessing assets beyond known sources of income
Voluntary return/plea bargaining
Contention of petitioner (a patwari) that he accepted the voluntary return offer made by National Accountability Bureay (Bureau) under pressure and to save his honour, and in consequent thereto paid a sum to the Bureau; that the voluntary return was liable to be annulled and the Bureau should be directed to refund the said amount
Inquiry against the petitioner for having "assets beyond means" was initiated, and the inquiry officer dug out assets and Bank accounts of the petitioner which were found beyond his known sources of income
Bureau offered the petitioner an option for voluntarily return of the illegally gained money
Record further reflected that the petitioner vide his letter asked the Bureau to intimate him his liability ascertained by the inquiry officer and also the grounds for ascertaining such liability so that he could opt for the option
Petitioner was duly informed about his liability and ultimately he paid the amount in question without raising any grievance in respect of the amount or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to ascertain his liability
Petitioner ultimately availed the benefit of voluntary return, and now at a belated stage he could not be allowed to question his own voluntary return or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to determine his liability
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
The petitioner has impugned the order of the Lahore High Court dated 09.01.2017 whereby the petitioner's plea to annul the "plea bargain" entered into by him with the NAB and to direct the authorities to refund the amount so paid in consequence to such voluntary return, was rejected.
2. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a Patwari on 7.8.2012, during an inquiry, was offered voluntary return which the petitioner, under pressure and to save his honour, accepted and in consequent thereto paid a sum of Rs.96,26,363/- which voluntary return is liable to be annulled and the respondents be directed to refund the said amount.
3. The learned counsel representing the NAB contended that during inquiry, the petitioner has voluntary accepted the offer of the voluntary return extended by the Chairman, NAB and, thereafter paid the amount so determined leading to closure of inquiry. It was submitted that the petitioner, during the proceedings was never arrested which would show that the acceptance of plea bargain and consequent payment was voluntary. As per learned counsel, the plea of the petitioner at this belated stage that, the voluntary return was under duress, is an after-thought. It was lastly contended that the transaction being a past and closed, could not be re-opened.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that the inquiry against the petitioner for having "assets beyond means" was initiated somewhere in the year, 2012. The officer conducting the inquiry, dug out the assets and bank accounts of the petitioner which were found beyond his known source of income and, therefore, the NAB authorities vide letter dated 6.8.2014 offered the petitioner an option for voluntarily return of the illegal gained money. The record further reflects that the petitioner vide his letter dated 8.9.2014, asked the NAB authorities to intimate him his liability ascertained by the inquiry officer and also the grounds for ascertaining such liability so that he could opt for the option. It appears that the petitioner was duly informed about his liability and ultimately he paid an amount of Rs. 96,26,363/- without raising any grievance in respect of the amount or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to ascertain his liability. The petitioner ultimately availed the benefit of voluntary return. The petitioner, therefore, at this juncture, cannot be allowed to question his own voluntary return or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to determine the corruption money.
5. No case for interference is made out calling for interference by this Court. This petition, as a consequence, is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. MWA/M-31/SC Petition dismissed.