Plea bargaining

Grievance of the petitioner was that while determining liability against him, the authorities included 15% incidental charges in the same

Validity

15% incidental charges was not the condition as mentioned in S. 25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, because the law was clear and precise

Imposing of 15% incidental charges was illegal having no force of law and the same was imposed in violation of S. 25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

High Court declared claim of 15% incidental charges by authorities as illegal having no force of law and in violation to S. 25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

High Court restrained the authorities from claiming excess amount as 15% incidental charges from petitioner

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Accused persons entered into plea bargaining and conviction was imposed upon them in view of S. 15 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Accused sought setting aside of conviction on the ground that they did not know about such conviction at the time of entering into plea bargaining as the same was not available then in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Validity

At the time of entering into and acceptance of plea bargain before Accountability Court, the accused, who were even otherwise well educated, were well apprised/aware of its legal consequences about deeming convictions and disqualifications, as imposed by Accountability Court, which were based on up to date amended National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Accused deserved no leniency in the matter of their deemed conviction or disqualification

Any such leniency shown to accused at such stage would be contrary to the mandate of amended law at the relevant time and also against public policy that those who were found guilty on their plea bargain would again be accommodated to take yet another risk/chance of further irregularities

Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction under S.15 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, awarded to accused persons by Trial Court at the time of their plea bargain

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondent voluntary surrendered amount which her husband deposited with Developers' company for purchase of house and in such connection respondent had submitted an affidavit

Objection of petitioner company was that NAB could not recover amount deposited on behalf of respondent as sale price paid by customer could not be returned to third party

Validity

Objection of petitioner company was devoid of any legal force as respondent only entered into an agreement to sell, which could not be equated with sale deed, as agreement to sell could not confer any right or title in the property

Prima facie, respondent had no known sources of income for depositing huge amount with petitioner company in respect of booking of house

National Accountability Bureau not only found during investigation that the house was booked by accused in the name of his wife but also the amount, which had been so far deposited by wife of accused was part of crime proceeds acquired by accused through cheating public at large

Letter issued to petitioner by NAB for recovery of amount deposited by husband of respondent did not suffer from any illegality

High Court declined to interfere in demand by NAB for return of amount

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Once authorization is ordered by Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), provision of section 25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, would apply, which envisages NAB authorities to seek concurrence of Accountability Court, in order to sanctify plea bargain

Approval of plea bargain by NAB means settlement between parties but such settlement by itself would not ipso facto discharge the liability of petitioner from the rigors of section 25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which requires that Chairman on receipt of entire amount of plea bargain has to seek consent/ endorsement of Accountability Court.

NAB filed reference against petitioner for recovery of defaulted amount and petitioner sought quashing of the said reference on the ground that once plea bargain was entered into, the amount could only be recovered under section 33-E of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, as arrears of land revenue

Validity

In exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, petitioner had to approach the Court with clean hands

High Court did not find any good justifiable reason as to why petitioner failed to make payment of remaining two instalments of plea bargain

Once petitioner had entered into a plea bargain, he could not turn around and say that such amount was recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue by invoking the provisions of section 33-E of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, such plea bargain approved by Chairman NAB after authorization of investigation was never consented to by Accountability Court

In order to invoke provisions of S.33-E of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the petitioner had to show that plea bargain after approval of Chairman NAB was consented to by Accountability Court, which was not the case of petitioner

Defaulter could not have a premium over his default and NAB authorities were competent to file Reference in absence of material reflecting that Chairman NAB after approving plea bargain had sought consent of Accountability Court

High Court declined to interfere in the Reference against petitioner pending before Accountability Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Origin, concept, classifications, scope and applicability.