Misuse of authority

Accused was alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 12,735,280/- out of scholarship fund which was to be disbursed among poor students

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment

Validity

Cheques issued by accused were not crossed cheques and, to some extent, they were issued in the names of heads of the schools

Entire record was silent as to the delivery of those cheques to heads of schools for disbursement of scholarship funds to eligible female students of middle class

Amount of Rs. 16,405,280/- was received by accused from the office of EDO (Education) in the head of scholarship funds for eligible female students of middle class under Sindh Education Reforms Program (SERP) but he disbursed an amount of Rs. 3,670,000/- only and had misappropriated / embezzled remaining amount of Rs. 12,753,280/

Offence of corruption or corrupt practices, as provided in S.9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 includes even an attempt to misuse authority so as to gain any benefit for oneself or for any other person and it need not necessarily result in any personal gain to accused

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused as prosecution successfully proved its case beyond shadow of doubt and accused had failed to point out any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused persons were President of Clerk Association and custodian of record who sold out plots belonging to the Association

Trial Court convicted both the accused persons for misuse of their authority and sentenced them to imprisonment along with fine

Validity

Hand writing expert appeared before Trial Court and produced report and confirmed the facts that documents bearing signatures were of the accused

Accused as President of the Association, misused his authority and acted illegally in order to facilitate the beneficiary, whereas his co-accused was custodian of record who transferred land of Association to a private person, despite the fact that they had to protect the interest of government and citizens

All prosecution witnesses stood firm on their deposition and accused failed to create material contradictions/doubt in the evidence which could make the case of prosecution doubtful

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Proceedings relating to inquiry and investigation were initiated on a complaint but that complainant was not examined by prosecution

Another prosecution witness who allegedly made application for exchange of land in question was also not examined by prosecution

Prosecution had the prerogative to examine witnesses of its choice but where a material witness was not examined and best evidence was withheld, the Court could draw an adverse inference under illustration (g) of Art.129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Courts were slow in interfering with acquittal judgment unless it was shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law suffering from errors of grave misreading or non-reading of evidence

Such judgments should not be lightly interfered and heavy burden was upon prosecution to rebut presumption of innocence which accused had earned and attained on account of his acquittal

Interference in judgment of acquittal was rare and prosecution must show that there were glaring errors of law and fact committed by Court in arriving at such decision, which would result into grave miscarriage of justice; acquittal judgment was perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion was drawn

Judgment of acquittal should not be interjected until findings were perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous

Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on reappraisal of evidence, a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at

Factual conclusions should not be upset, except when those were palpably perverse and suffering from serious and material factual infirmities

Acquitted accused acquired a triple presumption of innocence, which could not be dispelled by prosecution on any score

High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court as the same was based on reasonable possible view

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were arrested for misusing their authorities in allotment of state land and causing loss to government exchequer

Validity

Amount calculated in reference was Rs.3,607,200/- which was recovered with the approval of Senior Member Board of Revenue

Such communication was made by Secretary Land Utilization Department of Government of Sindh

Mutation entry in record of rights was incorporated, pursuant to the orders of Senior Member, Board of Revenue

Karachi Metropolitan Corporation allotted 2322 plots to private persons/industrialist and Board of Revenue granted 149 acres of land to individuals

Was yet to be determined during recording of evidence before Trial Court that land automatically stood resumed to Provincial Government or when payment was made and entries were kept in record of rights and payments were made along with fine

Government of Sindh was keen to resolve the issue and reference had already been filed

Accused persons were no more required for further inquiry

At bail stage only tentative assessment was to be made and deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible

Accused persons had made out their case of further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was alleged to have misused his authority in cancellation of plots of society and then allotting those in favour of men of his choice

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.15 million

Validity

Prosecution witnesses were independent and private persons who specifically implicated accused in commission of offence

Accused failed in giving evidence on oath under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. in disproof of prosecution allegation, and did not state a single word as to why prosecution witnesses deposed against him

Plea of false implication in case by accused was not sufficient to put any dent in prosecution case

Prosecution witnesses were consistent in their evidence and were not shattered in cross-examination

Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence on record and conviction was recorded against accused acting upon material available with Trial Court by holding that prosecution succeeded to establish its case against accused beyond a reasonable doubt

High Court reduced sentence of ten years imprisonment awarded to accused to one already served which as per Jail Roll was 8-½ years, as the sentence was excessive keeping in view the amount of loss caused to the society and national exchequer

High Court also reduced fine to Rs. 10 million and in the event of failure to pay fine accused was to suffer sentence of one year more

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioners were officials of Sindh Tourism Development Corporation who were alleged to have misused their authority in grant of contracts and causing loss to government exchequer

Validity

Most of the petitioners were leveling allegations against one another and some of them admitted that they did not carry out any work

Company and bank accounts were used by others while receiving amounts from government in place of contractors

Trial Court was to decide after recording of evidence of witnesses as to who misappropriated alleged amount

High Court had no jurisdiction to decide such controversy while exercising extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction

Relief claimed by petitioners through Constitutional petition was a relief for which no provision existed in relevant laws for which petitioners were charged

Only High Court by invoking extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction could grant such relief very sparingly in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid reasons to be recorded in writing

Bail could not be granted unless there was mala fide on the part of complainant or investigating agency

Petitioners failed to point out any mala fide by NAB against any of the petitioners

Elaborate sifting of evidence could not be made but only a tentative assessment was permissible

Cursory glance of record showed that all petitioners in connivance with one another misappropriated huge amount of money from government exchequer

Bail was refused, in circumstances.

Accused was an official of Capital Development Authority and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years by Trial Court on the allegations of misuse of his authority

Validity

Prosecution did not get compared handwriting available on withdrawal slips in order to establish that amount was withdrawn and then deposited by same person

Co-accused was acquitted by Trial Court regarding his asset beyond means

In absence of any proof that amounts deposited by accused or any other person on his behalf in his account were outcome of corruption or corrupt practices or it was a legitimate amount

High Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge, as prosecution failed to prove mens rea which was an essential component of S. 9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution had successfully proved charges of illegal appointments against one accused and awarding fake contracts to non-existent companies against all accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt

Accused persons failed to point out any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by Trial Court while passing judgment

Different sentences were awarded to different accused persons though offences were punishable under same provision of law prescribing same punishment for both without assigning valid reasons

Two probabilities exist one to enhance sentences of four years to seven years or reduce sentences of seven years to four years in respect of offences punishable under same provision of law

High Court under principle of similarity and equality and adopting proposition favouring accused persons, reduced sentence of seven years to four years imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused persons were arrested by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for selling valuable government land on forged and fictitious documents

Plea raised by accused persons was that some of co-accused persons had already granted bail either by High Court or by Supreme Court in same reference and almost on same allegations

Validity

Accused persons were nominated in NAB Reference with specific allegation that they with collusion and connivance with each other managed fake entries in revenue record whereby land belonging to government was fraudulently sold to persons of their choice who further sold out the same to Defence Housing Authority illegally and thereby caused loss of millions of Rupees to national exchequer

Accused persons were not entitled to bail on rule of consistency as cases of accused persons were altogether different as that of co-accused who had been granted bail

Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused persons with commission of offence which offence was heinous in nature

Bail was refused, in circumstances.

Accused persons were acquitted by Trial Court in exercise of S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. prior to recording of any prosecution evidence

Validity

No bar of limitation existed to trial or stage of proceedings for filing an application for acquittal of accused but propriety required that fair opportunity should be provided to prosecution to prove its case by producing evidence

Matter was to be decided on merits as envisaged under S. 245, Cr.P.C. after providing proper opportunity to prosecution for producing its evidence and recording statements of accused persons under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

High Court directed that in cases of corruption and misappropriation of public money, Courts were required to act with extreme care and caution in deciding such cases and should not proceeded hastily in acquitting accused persons involved therein either under S. 248-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case could

Trial Court was to provide prosecution every possible opportunity to prove its case and establish guilt of accused after full-fledged trial

High Court set aside judgment of acquittal and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after recording of evidence

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Presumption contained in S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, provides that initial burden of proof rests on prosecution

Burden to prove all ingredients of charge lies on prosecution and it never shifts on accused who can stand on plea of innocence assigned to him under law till it is dislodged

Unless presumption of innocence imputed to accused is crowed out by force of suspicious circumstances, accused cannot be called upon to prove that charge was false or he was innocent

Prosecution therefore, is never absolved from proving charge beyond reasonable doubt and burden shifts to accused only when prosecution succeeds in establishing presumption of guilt.

In the present case, three accused persons were charged for misusing their authority resulting in loss to national exchequer

Trial Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. acquitted two accused persons but application of one was dismissed

Validity

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was confused as to whether it was a case of misuse of authority or failure to exercise it

Alleged loss was not attributed to deceit or fraud; it was not a case which should have been referred to the Court

Court had also not exercised its discretion in accordance with law while deciding to take cognizance

Delay of more than two years was due to difference of opinions between two relevant ministries of Federal Government

No one was ready to take responsibility of a concluded contract

Presumption of 'double innocence' was attached to order of acquittal of accused persons

Presumption of 'double innocence' could be rebutted if it could be shown that order was passed as a result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or it was patently illegal

Appellate Court was not to interfere with acquittal merely because on reappraisal of evidence a different conclusion or opinion could be formed

Finding of acquittal could only be reversed, upset or disturbed in exceptional circumstances such as when the same were perverse, shocking, alarming, suffering from error of jurisdiction or misreading or non-reading of evidence

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere order of acquittal of two accused while the third was also acquitted of the charge

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Gaining any benefit or favour, either by public office holder vested with authority or for any other, is a pre-condition for constituting an offence under S.9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Mere allegations of misuse of authority does not justify depriving an accused of liberty because an irregularity or wrong decision sans criminal intent, mens rea and illegal gain or benefit does not attract offences under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Prosecution was bound to prove essential elements of mens rea and intention to commit an offence under S.9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

If any of said two element are missing, offence is not committed.

Prosecution alleged that accused persons paid funds to the contractor for the work, which in fact was not executed by him on the spot and fake entries were made in the measurement books without spot inspection

Star witness produced by the prosecution admitted that the contract was a project for construction of 10 km road and in response to a question put by the defence, he could not point out even a single document from the record of the project to show that either the work had not been executed by the contractor or there was any problem regarding the quality of the work

Said witness admitted that the project was an ongoing project and 9 km road had already been constructed on the spot whereas, 1 km road was yet to be constructed

Bills exhibited during the course of examination of said witness pertained to the payments made for the work already done on the spot

Said witness further admitted that there was nothing on record, which showed that the construction of the road was not carried out according to the specifications as per the contract

Prosecution could not prove through any document that excess payments were made to the contractor or the contract was granted due to some extraneous considerations

Minute analysis of the entire evidence and record placed on file suggested that the project was still ongoing and 9 km road had already been constructed on the spot and delay in construction of the road was occasioned due to law and order situation in the area

Prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the accused persons through cogent, reliable, confidence inspiring evidence and authentic documentary record

Criminal appeal, being without merits, was dismissed in limine.

Accused was Secretary Implementation with Punjab Government and was arrested by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on the allegation of cancelling award of a Housing Scheme after receiving illegal gratification from unsuccessful bidder

Validity

Contract of Housing Scheme was never awarded to unsuccessful bidder who was co-accused

Accused was not member of Board of Directors of Land Development Company who was competent to award or cancel the contract before the transfer of the project to Development Authority

Accused did not have any authority to cancel the contract nor he had any authority to award the contract to co-accused

Accused did not have any role in the affairs of Land Development Company and he was Secretary (Implementation) to Chief Minister and was merely playing the role of post office by conveying decisions of Chief Minister to Board of Directors of Land Development Company and decision of Board of Directors of Land Development Company to Chief Minister

Bail of accused in second case regarding assets beyond means had already been dismissed by High Court and only on such ground of assets beyond means bail could not be declined as same would amount to double jeopardy and was violative of Art.13 of the Constitution and provisions of S.403, Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner accused was Chief Minister of Province and prosecution's case was that Land Development Company, owned by Provincial Government, awarded a contract for development of a Housing Scheme but the same could not be performed on account of mala fide intervention of the accused

Validity

Accused Chief Minister passed direction to transfer the project from Land Development Company to Development Authority and he also decided that the project would be executed through public private partnership mode instead of government mode

Accused Chief Minister, with the approval of Board of Directors, ordered change of execution of project in Public Private Partnership mode instead of government mode

Neither single inch of State land was transferred in the name of any person/contract, nor there was any affectee of the Scheme as claimed by NAB

Prima facie there was not a single affectee in the case because no amount for allotment of any plot from any person was received by then

Only application forms along with non-refundable fee of Rs.1000/- were received from applicants and the amount was deposited in government treasury and not in account of accused

None from prosecution stated a single word against accused that he ordered inquiry regarding acceptance of his bid and contract was cancelled

Complainant settled the matter with Land Development Company with his mutual consent through a written agreement

No allegation against accused Chief Minister that he misappropriated the funds allocated for the scheme in question or had received any illegal gratification, commission or kickbacks from the contractor who was awarded the contract for construction/development of scheme

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Even if there was any procedural irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction of accused, even then the same may not amount to misuse of authority so as to constitute an offence under S. 9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Plea raised by petitioner was that contract was awarded in due process of law, no loss was caused to national exchequer and he received no pecuniary advantage

Validity

Mere violation of some law or procedure at the most without any mens rea, case of prosecution needed further inquiry because petitioner was directed to follow procedure before awarding contract as decision was taken by Chief Executive of the Province upon summary whereafter contract was awarded

Offence needed further probe as its ingredients were not prima facie reflected

Extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution was to be exercised with conceptive and caution just to advance cause of justice and not to frustrate or defy intent of law

Such exercise was to be made to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Bail could not be withheld as punishment

Inquiry by High Court was permissible to seek an answer to question of involvement of accused without going into deeper appreciation of evidence

Right of accused to approach High Court was not only a Constitutional mandate but was independent of any source of jurisdiction such as S.497, Cr.P.C. or S.9(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Powers of High Court were meant and reserved for enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens particularly those who were retained by NAB authority in offences, which called for further inquiry

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction allowed post arrest bail of accused

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Accused persons were alleged to have appointed 537 daily wagers whereas the Board of Directors had given approval for 428 appointments

Board of Directors in its earlier meetings had authorised the employment of 121 personnel for regular positions but the appointments were not made due to lack of funds, hence, daily wagers were appointed

No law, rule, regulation or SOP in vogue, existed for appointment of daily wagers

Appointments were made as per the prevailing practice

Six Members Scrutiny Committee had recommended the daily wagers for appointment; the appointments were needed for smooth running of the company

No witness had testified that the accused persons had made any illegal or unlawful gain or advantage from the appointment of daily wagers

Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had misused their authority

Incomplete and discriminatory investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer

Appeals against conviction were allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for misusing his authority and causing loss to national exchequer while awarding tender regarding establishment of LNG Terminal

Validity

Figures relating to alleged loss to exchequer as quoted by NAB was based on conjectures

No material violation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 was mentioned and alleged role attributed to petitioner could not be treated as an offence relating to corruption and corrupt practices

National Accountability Bureau could not explain as to what authority was exercised by the petitioner which amounted to a 'criminal act'

Correspondence and finalization of matters relating to establishing LNG Terminal by an employee of a private juridical person could not be treated as fraudulent and dishonest action

Petitioner was merely an employee and there was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that he had made any financial gain

Case against petitioner was entirely dependent upon documentary evidence and same was in possession of prosecution and there was no possibility for petitioner to tamper the same

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Procedural irregularity without mens rea does not prima facie constitute an offence.

Petitioners were accused facing charges under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for converting amenity plots into residential and commercial plots

Validity

Karachi Development Authority and officials and beneficiaries made vast amounts of money, loss was caused to public exchequer and people of area were deprived of parks and other recreational facilities where their children could play, or hospital or a school etc., which would have benefitted local community

All accused in reference connived together to give effect to their plan of illegal enrichment by misusing their authority or failing to exercise their authority and benefitting themselves and others

Such was a case of joint criminal enterprise where each of accused played his role in achieving common criminal objective which could not have been achieved without active involvement and connivance of each of other accused who each played his role in criminal act and question was only whether his role in criminal act was to a lesser or greater extent

Officials of Development Authority did not verify any documents and did not meet any of original allottees about whom it had come on record that those were fictitious persons

Officials belatedly tried to deny their signatures but signatures matched those on their Vakalatnamas and no such issue was raised before Trial Court and such could be an afterthought in order to escape liability

Sufficient material on record was available in shape of statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. of Prosecution witnesses and plot transfer orders duly signed by them prima facie connected petitioners to the offence for which they were charged

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Petitioners were alleged to have misused their authority causing misappropriation of imported urea resulting in loss to national exchequer

Validity

Object of pre-arrest bail was to save innocent persons from being unnecessarily harassed due to their arrest in cases instituted against them with mala fide intention and ulterior motives

For grant of pre-arrest bail there must be some essential element and accused had to satisfy the court to point mala fide

No evidence of enmity in terms of mala fide or ulterior motive was available on record which was prerequisite for pre-arrest bail

All petitioners had requisite mens rea to commit offence charged with their acts, conduct, failure to exercise authority, misuse of authority and deliberately violating the rules

Trial Court was to decide mens rea of petitioners after recording evidence in the matter

Petitioners were prima facie involved in commission of offence and they were nominated in the reference who were attributed a specific role

No evidence of enmity in terms of mala fide or ulterior motive was available on record, which could have actuated prosecution to falsely implicate petitioners

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Petitioners were accused facing charges under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for failure to exercise authority and causing loss to national exchequer by fraudulent refund of sales tax

Validity

Principal accused who obtained illegal sales tax refunds based on fake and/or flying invoices provided by other proprietorship co-accused most of who entered into plea bargain and thereby admitted their guilt

Sales Tax scam could not have taken place without their active involvement as aiders and abettors

Official co-accused who wilfully failed to exercise authority in failing to check obvious and glaring suspicious cases of sales tax refund which would have stood out to such experienced and senior officers

Without active involvement and connivance of all accused in reference sales tax scam in question could never have taken place

Banking transactions and nexus between accused persons was also shown through statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. or bank officials

Accused persons failed to show any mala fide on part of NAB authorities

Sufficient material was available on record to show that petitioners aided and abetted in receiving illegal sales tax refunds which caused a massive loss to the national exchequer

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Prosecution has to prove charge under S. 9(a)(vi) under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 before Trial Court thereafter, prosecution would be deemed to have discharged burden of proof and then the burden of proof shifts on accused to rebut presumption of guilt.

Accused persons were officials of revenue department who were arrested for issuing illegal and bogus revenue record in favour of co-accused persons with regard to precious government lands

Trial Court convicted accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment for 10 years

Plea raised by accused persons was that they were not proved to be beneficiaries

Validity

Accused persons were representatives of public functionary, deliberately used/exercised their own authority or for that matter usurped power of public functionary with objective of letting absconding accused to gain advantage/benefit and were guilty of offence under S. 9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

In process of misappropriation with record-of-rights and verification of "NOC" on basis of non-existent documents accused persons did not gain any pecuniary benefit for themselves but they gained benefit for absconding co-accused

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as same was fully supported by evidence on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was Director General Development Authority and was arrested for auctioning amenity plots for commercial use through misuse of his position causing loss to the exchequer

Validity

Petitioner was obliged to ensure that amenity plots were used for their allocated purposes e.g., parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, mosques etc., which was to benefit the public in the area

Petitioner betrayed trust of people and illegally, by misusing his authority, let out such amenity plots for commercial purposes which deprived the public of valuable and vital facilities such as parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, mosques etc.

Petitioner illegally misused his authority in complete disregard of welfare of the people in favour of commercial interests

Prima facie sufficient material was available on record to connect petitioner to the offence

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court as envisaged in S.9, C.P.C. had to be construed strictly and if it was found that government officials or authorities mentioned under particular statute, which was invoking statutory bar, had not acted fairly, justly and reasonably, then such bar could not be pressed into service

Procedure mentioned in S. 93 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was never adhered to by income tax officials while passing attachment order in respect of suit property

Attachment order in respect of suit property was without any legal justification and was liable to be set at naught

High Court declared that suit property was owned by plaintiff company and income tax authorities illegally, wrongfully and by excessive use of power and authority had attached suit property

High Court directed government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Income Tax officials forthwith and all officials were liable to pay damages to plaintiff company

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

Mala fides, if asserted must be specifically alleged in petition to establish an exceptional case in favour of person approached for relief of anticipatory bail

Such requirement was missing and allegations against petitioners were of misuse of authority, negligence and violation of law, non-performance of their duties

Accumulated result of such acts was embezzlement and misappropriation of wheat and causing loss of millions of rupees to government exchequer

High Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was Deputy Project Director and was arrested by National Accountability Bureau Authorities on allegation that 20% mobilization amount was advanced even to those companies, persons whose works were dropped and even schemes were not found feasible

Validity

Role of accused was subservient to principal accused who was Project Director

No direct allegation of corruption or misuse or abuse of power was alleged against accused by National Accountability Bureau

Whether accused had acted in violation of any law or rules, benefitted him or other persons, was to be dealt with by Trial Court

Inquiry against accused was already completed wherein he was charged only for connivance

No direct allegation was brought by National Accountability Bureau in view of his position and kind of duties assigned to him

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was Project Director and he was arrested by National Accountability Bureau Authorities on allegation that he advanced 20% mobilization amount even to those companies, persons whose works were dropped and even schemes were not found feasible

Validity

Available record depicted that many schemes for which more than 80% amount was released did not exist on grounds but were commissioned and funds were released with active connivance of the accused

Deep appreciation of facts, while disposing of bail petition or Constitutional petition in a matter of detention was not a requirement of law

Prima facie, inquiry against petitioner revealed sufficient and reasonable documentary proof which made out a case in terms of S. 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 against the accused

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court as envisaged in S. 9, C.P.C. had to be construed strictly and if it was found that government officials or authorities mentioned under particular statute, which was invoking statutory bar, had not acted fairly, justly and reasonably, then such bar could not be pressed into service

Procedure mentioned in S. 93 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was never adhered to by income tax officials while passing attachment order in respect of suit property

Attachment order in respect of suit property was without any legal justification and was liable to be set at naught

High Court declared that suit property was owned by plaintiff company and income tax authorities illegally, wrongfully and by excessive use of power and authority had attached suit property

High Court directed government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against income tax officials forthwith and all officials were liable to pay damages to plaintiff company

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

Allegations against accused were that he was involved in creating 164 bogus Identity Cards of illegal appointees in government department and huge amount was paid under the garb of salaries, which caused loss to the government exchequer

Accused being computer operator, was to maintain and update the record, forms and data in the computer, provided by the superior/senior officers

Accused was not authorized to object the approval of sanctioned posts and allocation of budget etc.

Accused was not in a position to examine or verify the genuineness of record pertaining to new appointments

Allegation against accused to open fake Identity Cards without the directions, knowledge and permission of superior officers was impossible

Case of accused, therefore, was one of further inquiry

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Allegations against accused were that he was involved in creating 164 bogus Identity Cards of illegal appointees in government department and huge amount was paid under the garb of salaries, which caused loss to the government exchequer

Prosecution case was based on documentary evidence, which had already been collected during the course of investigation and same was available in safe custody of prosecution

No probability of tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused existed, thus further detention of accused would not serve any purpose

Record showed that there was joint liability of embezzlement against 22 accused persons including women official

No distinct and specific role had been assigned to the accused, as neither any specific amount gained/received by him nor specific amount for causing the loss to the government exchequer had been mentioned by the NAB authorities, thus allegations levelled against accused required further probe

Circumstances and facts established that accused had made out a case for enlargement of bail on the ground of further inquiry

Accused was allowed to bail accordingly.

Allegations against accused were that he was involved in creating 164 bogus Identity Cards of illegal appointees in government department and huge amount was paid under the garb of salaries, which caused loss to the government exchequer

Investigating Officer of NAB, neither examined the complainant nor he was cited as witness in the list of witnesses

Investigating Officer had failed to collect the scanned record of alleged fake Identity Cards nor it had been clarified as to out of alleged 164 illegal Identity Cards, which IDs were made by accused in System Application Program(SAP)

Even specific names and total embezzled amount allegedly received by accused, had not been expressly mentioned in order to ascertain the total amount of gain by him nor mentioned total liability of accused for causing loss to government exchequer

Fake appointees being the direct beneficiaries, were not included in the array of accused nor they were cited as witnesses

Amount of salaries received by the fake appointees were not recovered during investigation

Neither call up notice was issued to accused nor he was afforded an opportunity to plead his case properly during the course of inquiry and investigation and he was directly apprehended

Prosecution had failed to examine a single witness in six months to substantiate allegation against accused which reflected that prosecution was not serious for early commencement of trial and was bent upon to keep the accused behind the bars without proper trial

Circumstances suggested that case of accused fell under the ambit of further inquiry

Accused was granted bail accordingly.

Petitioner attempted to hide behind a letter received from Board of Revenue which directed him to take action under the Policy and resume land which was allegedly passed on to co-accused persons

Co-accused claimed not to have received that letter but even if the letter was not received the same would not have relieved petitioner of his responsibility to ensure that orders were complied with

Sufficient material was available on record to show that petitioner failed to exercise his authority by not even checking to see that his orders were being implemented which was required by a man of his experience and seniority

For a senior government official simply forwarding important orders without ensuring that those were complied with or reporting failure of concerned officials to implement the same to his higher authority which led to a colossal loss to exchequer would not relieve such senior official of attempted potential criminal culpability

Sufficient material was available on record to show that there were reasonable grounds to connect petitioner to commission of offence

No grounds were raised which could form a precondition for grant of pre-arrest bail

Pre-arrest bail was declined in circumstances.

In order to prove charge of misuse of authority, at least two basic ingredients i.e. mens rea and actus rea of crime have to be necessarily established; in case any of them if found missing, offence cannot be constituted whereby mens rea in context to misuse of authority means, to act in disregard of law with conscious knowledge that act was being done without authority of law which resulted into illegal gain or undue benefit.

Petitioner was General Manager in a State owned company and it was alleged that he extended illegal benefits to a carriage contractor resulting into loss to national exchequer

Validity

Such category of officers were not entitled for any concession of bail who had not performed their duties in accordance with minimum required standards to protect assets of State and Government of Pakistan, which was a sacred trust under their command and control as the same amounted to corruption and corrupt practices

Petitioner was prima facie connected with commission of offence and had failed to demonstrate that he performed his duties honestly, diligently in a careful manner rather he was instrumental in causing loss to national exchequer

No mala fide on the part of National Accountability Bureau authorities against petitioner apparent on record nor petitioner demonstrated through any material that he was not connected with the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Pre-arrest bail was declined in circumstances.

Federal/Provincial Ministers or a member of Parliament or Provincial Assembly, under the Federal and Provincial Rules and Business, had no direct role in such regard, and any interference by them in such matters would be unlawful and of no legal effect.

Petitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau on the allegation that he being official in Housing Foundation in question got allotment of plot on lesser price in his favour

Validity

Allotments of additional plots made by the Housing Foundation were cancelled and amount deposited by allottees was secured

Disputed plots were not allotted at lower or concessional rates and the same were allotted at reserved price fixed by the Foundation

If National Accountability Bureau felt that plots in question were to be sold at market price rather than the reserved price then the same principle was to be applicable across the board to all plots that were sold/allotted by the Foundation wherever those were

Such was to be a larger issue warranting policy decision by competent authority

Petitioner did not usurped powers of another public functionary so as to derive a gain or benefit for himself

Ultimate authority in granting allotment of plot to petitioner was Director General and allotment was made in favour of petitioner after he satisfied prescribed criteria

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners were members of departmental selection committee and allegation against them was that they had selected person of their choice bye-passing merits

Validity

Co-accused were original beneficiaries who were admitted to pre-arrest bail

In view of rule of consistency and that reference had already been filed against petitioners and other co-accused and documentary evidence was already procured by investigating officer, which was part of reference filed against petitioners, therefore, sending petitioners behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose

When beneficiaries had already been admitted to pre-arrest bail, exceptional circumstances existed in favour of petitioners

Case of petitioners fell within S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. and benefit thereof was to be extended in their favour, therefore, per-arrest bail was confirmed

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Initial burden was on the prosecution to prove that the accused was guilty of the offence for which he was being charged.

Allegation against accused was that in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner he asked a sub-engineer in the Municipal Committee to make an incorrect (reduced) assessment of the value of State land and got the same allotted in favour of the co-accused

Accountability Court convicted accused under S. 10(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and sentenced him to six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000

Appeal filed by accused before the High Court was also dismissed

Validity

Only evidence to prove mens rea of accused was the statement of the sub-engineer, who alleged that he initially assessed the value of land as Rs. 150 per sqft. but it was at the asking of the accused that he reduced it to Rs.30 per sqft.

Sub-engineer admitted in his cross-examination that he never gave it in writing that property was valued at Rs. 150 per sqft.

Sub-engineer stated that he assessed the value of subject property after assessing the value of adjacent properties but admitted that adjoining properties were never assessed as none was sold

No question was put to the accused by the prosecution about the property being assessed at the rate of Rs.150 per sqft. at his asking, or about any pecuniary benefit that he derived from the said transaction, or about the fact that property was owned by Revenue department and not the Municipal Committee

Statement of sub-engineer regarding value of property was not corroborated nor was there any documentary evidence

Prosecution had failed to discharge its initial burden to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge.

Accused was arrested by NAB on the allegation of recommending name of principal accused for appointment as Chairman OGRA, which appointment was illegal and the Chairman caused billions of rupees loss to national exchequer

Validity

Accused along with other members of committee gave justification of recommendations in respect of principal accused as, "20 years' experience in the field of law, sufficient experience in handling cases of Corporate law in private as well as public sectors, served as Registrar in OGRA from 2002 to 2006, presently working with noble group of companies"

Accused did not object on illegality committed by Selection Committee and such act of accused fell under S.9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

During the period principal accused remained as Chairman, he caused a loss in excess of Rs.82 billion to OGRA and national exchequer directly

Prima facie, accused had played a significant role in the process of selection of principal accused as Chairman OGRA and his culpability for malfeasance, non-feasance would be proved during investigation by investigating officer

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he prepared forged documents including agriculture pass book and average sale certificate and recommended for loan

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to five years imprisonment

Validity

Specific allegation existed against accused but prosecution failed to procure report of handwriting expert to establish forgery on the part of accused

Comparison/observation of Trial Court could not be made basis for passing conviction against a person, which even otherwise was dangerous without aid of expert

Conviction based on such comparison was unjustified

High Court suspended sentence awarded to accused and admitted him to bail

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Plea raised by accused was that evidence on the basis of which he had been convicted was not put to him by Trial Court during statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Effect

If a piece of evidence was not put to accused, that evidence could not be used against him

At bail stage, in appeal, it was to be seen whether there was superficial and apparent mistake of fact or law in the judgment of court below

Plea raised by accused was not without force

Sentence was suspended by High Court in circumstances.

Allegation against accused persons was that they allotted shops in New Subzi Mandi (Fruit Market) in violation of policy duly notified in the gazette and decision of Standing Committee

Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for misusing their authority

Validity

Prosecution did not produce any witness to demonstrate that allotments during the tenure of accused were violative of terms and conditions of Notification in question and decision of Standing Committee

Prosecution based its charge on two documents i.e. notification and decision of Standing Committee but both documents were neither exhibited before Trial Court nor were produced in any way, hence the core documents by which allegations could be proved were missing from the record

Accused, on specific demand, could produce only notification before High Court

Prosecution failed to prove charge against accused and accused were acquitted

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.