Corruption and corrupt practices

Accused-respondents were charged with the allegation of accumulation of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and caused loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 184,609,136/- by means of corruption and corrupt practices

Trial Court convicted the accused "ITG" whereas accused "SI" was acquitted

Prosecution alleged that the appellant had purchased a house and a plot of land, but in that connection, the material five witnesses were not produced without any cogent reasons

Thus, adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would be drawn against the prosecution that if the said witnesses had been examined then they would not have supported the prosecution case, which aspect of the matter also made the prosecution version doubtful

Circumstances established that no infirmity and perversity in impugned judgment of acquittal had been found, thus appeal against acquittal was dismissed

Further prosecution failed to prove the charge against the co-convict, thus appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused-respondents were charged with the allegation of accumulation of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and caused loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 184,609,136/- by means of corruption and corrupt practices

Trial Court convicted the accused "ITG" whereas accused "SI" was acquitted

Prosecution case hinged upon the statement of approver under S. 164. Cr.P.C., recorded by Judicial Magistrate

Testimony of approver reflected that he remained in NAB custody for 33/34 days, and the prosecution had failed to furnish the details that how many times the accused/ approver was produced before the concerned Court for obtaining his remand

Statement of approver must be voluntary and free from any coercion and its evidentiary value was contingent on independent corroboration which implicated the accused in the crime

Provision of Art. 16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, evaluated the testimony of an accomplice or approver

Such testimony should corroborate in material particulars the substantial prosecution case and should directly implicated the accused, but in the present case the prosecution's evidence was lacking in substantiating the accusations against the appellant, as such, the testimony of approver could not be relied upon in isolation

Moreover, the interplay with Art. 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, allowed confessional statement as circumstantial evidence

Keeping in view the principle of safe administration of justice, it was the bounded duty of concerned Judicial Magistrate to observe the mandatory and settled procedure and precautions for recording the judicial confession of an approver

It was evident from the statement of approver that NAB had harassed the witness to give statement against the appellant and in this context, the approver filed a constitutional petition wherein he narrated all the facts

Judicial Magistrate had not adhered to the provision of S. 364 read with S. 164, Cr.P.C., as such, on such score alone the statement of approver was not to be relied upon

Circumstances established that no infirmity and perversity in impugned judgment of acquittal had been found, thus appeal against acquittal was dismissed

Further prosecution failed to prove the charge against the co-convict, thus appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused-respondents were charged with the allegation of accumulation of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and caused loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs.184,609,136/- by means of corruption and corrupt practices

Trial Court convicted the accused "ITG" whereas accused "SI" was acquitted

Admittedly the appellant was a holder of a public office i.e. Ex-Secretary to Chief Minister, but the prosecution record was silent regarding his misuse of authority to gain illegal gains or pecuniary benefits

Prosecution did not bring on the service record of the appellant that he had faced any disciplinary action for misconduct, corruption, and corrupt practices in his entire service career

Section 9(a)(vi) of NAO, 1999, demonstrated two elements to constitute mens rea i.e. misuse of authority and illegal gains, which were lacking in the instant case

Initially, the prosecution was duty-bound to discharge the burden and by mere filing of reference, the burden could not be shifted upon the accused to disprove the allegation

In the present case, the prosecution had failed to bring on record trustworthy, credible, and unimpeachable evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant

Circumstances estab-lished that no infirmity and perversity in impugned judgment of acquittal had been found, thus appeal against acquittal was dismissed

Further prosecution failed to prove the charge against the co-convict, thus appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused-respondents were charged with the allegation of accumulation of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and caused loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs.184,609,136/- by means of corruption and corrupt practices

Trial Court convicted the accused "ITG" whereas accused "SI" was acquitted

Accusation of prosecution was that the NAB had conducted a raid on a house, to arrest the appellant, but at the time of raid, the appellant was not present in the house

While conducting the search of the house, Pakistani/foreign currency, jewellery, and documents were recovered, which were produced by prosecution witness

Documents produced by the prosecution witnesses depicted that the house belonged to "GJ", who was wife of "MA"

Payment for said house was made by "GJ" from her bank account

Prosecution had made acquitted accused-respondent in connected Criminal Ehtesab Acquittal Appeal and"GJ" as Benamidars in the said property on the strength of property documents, wherein, "GJ" nominated acquitted accused as her nominee in the property documents

Mere mentioning of the name of a nominee did not confer any title of ownership with the property, as such, the documents produced to such extent did not establish any nexus of the appellant with the said house

It was evident from the record that "MA" and "GJ" had the citizenship of the U.K. and the recovered Pakistani/foreign currency and gold ornaments from their house had no nexus with the appellant

Circumstances established that no infirmity and perversity in impugned judgment of acquittal had been found, thus appeal against acquittal was dismissed

Further prosecution failed to prove the charge against the co-convict, thus appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellants/convicts challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that, regarding the allegations leveled against them, four references were finalized by the NAB authorities

Out of these four references, three were sent to the Trial Court while one was withheld

Trial Court, after completing the trial in the three references, convicted and sentenced the appellants/convicts

However, in the appeal, High Court directed that the sentences awarded in the three references be served concurrently

Appellants/convicts contended that the NAB authorities filed the fourth reference after a delay of ten years, without offering any explanation

Had that reference been filed along with the other three, the appellants would have faced concurrent sentences

Said fact was also observed by the Chairman NAB, who noted that the appellants had already been convicted in the three references, and further prosecution would amount to double jeopardy

Consequently, NAB filed an application for the closure of the reference before the Trial Court

However, the Trial Court refused to close the fourth reference in its order dated 23.07.2009 and directed that the trial be proceeded

Appellants/convicts also filed an application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., which was not decided by the Trial Court

No explanation on record for the delay in filing the instant reference from the year 2001 to 2010, when three references against the appellants were filed

Prosecution failed to justify that delay and instead filed an application for the closure of the reference

Since the allegations in both the earlier three references and the instant reference related to corruption and misuse of authority by appellants during the same period, therefore S.17(d) of the NAB Ordinance applied

Said Section permitted an accused person to be charged with and tried for multiple offences of the same kind, committed over a span of years, in a single trial

However, the Trial Court, without considering that provision, proceeded with the matter and convicted the appellants, which was unsustainable in the eyes of the law and amounted to double jeopardy

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

As per record petitioner/accused being owner/ developer of society entered into agreements to sell land measuring 136 kanals and 4 marlas with the land owners

Petitioner did not make full payments to the said land owners as per the terms and conditions of said agreement to sell due to which the land of society could not be transferred to the allottees

Petitioner submitted file for approval of society comprising area of 89-K which was not approved due to non-ownership/non-completion of formalities by the petitioner/accused

It was advertised that basic amenities like boundary wall, sewerage, sui gas, electricity, parks, market and metaled roads were available in the housing society but no such amenity was available

Money of the affectees had been misappropriated and they were victims by the hands of the petitioner

Prima-facie, element of any bona fide in the formation of the housing society was missing

However, this scenario, prima-facie, reflected that this housing scheme was taken over by the petitioner for the purpose of extracting money through "cheating and fraud"

Petitioner lured general public to buy plots etc.

However, accused/petitioner failed to provide possession of the plots to majority of them

There were reasonable grounds available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence i.e. corruption and corrupt practice within the meaning of S.9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

The NAB was equipped with sufficient incriminating material, which connected the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence

Petitioner/accused was not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail

Present petition being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioners was that of misappropriating the pension funds of the officers of District Accounts Office

Record reflected that as per the statement of allegations, officials of the District Accounts Office signed and processed the fake bills in respect of pension and refund but the same were not processed as per the Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual issued by Government of Pakistan, which was applicable to the Federal as well as Provincial Governments

Applicant "MNB" as per allegations was a signatory of 850 bills amounting to Rs. 610, 664, 440 and the amount was posted in the fake bank accounts with the collusion of bank employees/ applicants "QB" and "GM" and other co-accused, such fake accounts were stated to be in the names of various individuals who never remained in government job and misappropriated the said amount

Furthermore 5433 pension bills and 130 refund bills were recovered during the house search of co-accused

During investigation only 1756 pension bills/vouchers out of 5433 were sorted out which pertained to MCB Bank and the applicant "MNB", co-accused signed and processed the same at the relevant time of their incumbencies

During the investigation, it surfaced that 130 bulldozers were repaired by the Agricultural Department and payment was made from pensioner's accounts

Applicant "IM", who was posted as Director, AE&WM, approved the fake refund bills/vouchers in favour of dummy companies allegedly owned by the contractors, who were the three applicants and other co-accused

Record showed that numerous pension and refund bills were signed and processed improperly, violating the Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual issued by the Government of Pakistan

Documentary evidence linking the applicants to those fraudulent activities was substantial

Allegations suggested collusion between the applicants and bank employees to create fake accounts for illicit transactions

This demonstrated a coordinated effort to engage in fraudulent activities

Investigation had revealed a vast number of fraudulent transactions, including 5433 pension bills and 130 refund bills, with a significant portion being directly linked to the applicants

Said quantity indicated a systematic approach to fraud rather than isolated incidents

Nature of the allegations and the potential impact on public confidence in government institutions warranted a cautious approach

Applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to counter the serious allegations against them or to demonstrate their innocence and negate the version of NAB authorities

At the bail stage, only tentative assessment was to be made and nothing had been brought on record by the applicants to show any ill-will or mala fide on the part of the complainant/Investigating Officer of the case which was the requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail

Moreover, there was sufficient material collected by the Investigating Officer in the shape of bills, vouchers and other documents which showed that the District Account officer in connivance with other Government Officers/ Servants, employees of private bank and private persons were involved in the alleged offence and inflicted loss to the government exchequer in the tune of Rs. 3.2 billion

Applicants/ accused had failed to establish a case for confirmation of their ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them

Petitions for pre-arrest bail were dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 million by revising the layout of the society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Record showed that the accused/Administrator of society did not seek permission for the change of amenity plots to commercial plots and that such permission had already been applied for by Secretary of the Society which was approved and this was before the board of the Society was superseded and before the accused was appointed Administrator, and as such he had nothing to do with the initial process of revising the original lay out plan

Surprisingly, the person who seemed to have started the whole revision of the original lay out plan process i.e. the Secretary was not made an approver

Admittedly Secretary denied his signatures on these requests for change of lay out plan, however, the Investigating Officer did not arrange for his signatures to be examined by a hand writing export

Trial Court did not even seek to compare the two signatures of Secretary

So it appeared from the evidence that it was the witness who was the Secretary of the Society who initially sought to revise the lay out plan

According to a witness the letter dated 07.01.2013 was apparently signed by Secretary and the letter dated 04.01.2013 was signed by him and both said letters requested approval of lay out plan, and thus it was not appellant/Administrator who sought the approval

Secretary/witness did not even know who signed the revised layout plan

Signature of appellant/ Administrator was not on the revised lay out plan

Overall the evidence of Secretary of the Society was far from confidence inspiring and had grave doubts as to its reliability and truthfulness and certainly led to doubts about the role of appellant/ Administrator in seeking approval to change the layout plan

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 Million by revising the layout of the Society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Notable that one co-accused beneficiary who was the son of one of the accused persons who had allegedly received a plot in return for his father/appellant approving the revised lay out plan and whose case was on a worse footing than the current beneficiaries/appellants, was acquitted on the same set of evidence

No appeal against the acquittal of said co-accused had been filed and as such the appellants/beneficiaries were entitled to equal treatment of acquittal from the charge

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 million by revising the layout of the Society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Record showed that there was doubt over the credibility of some of the witnesses who gave evidence

Investigating Officer admitted that all the five witnesses were facing NAB inquiries at the time of their evidence and one had even been convicted and another had already had his Voluntary Return (VR) accepted so they had every reason to support the prosecution case in return for lenient treatment in the NAB cases which they were facing

Even the Investigating Officer of the case was dismissed on account of misconduct which casted doubt on his entire investigation

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 million by revising the layout of the society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Plots were sold by appellant/Administrator after advertising as confirmed by other witness

Another witness in his evidence stated that all sales of the plots were done after following all codal formalities

Sale in any event was not done on a pick and chose basis as the sale was through auction following an advertisement

Valuation of the plots was made by a witness/Mukhtiarkar who relied upon a report from a local Tapedar who did not give evidence and whose report was not exhibited

Mukhtiarkar admitted in his evidence that it was not the job of a Revenue Officer to ascertain the market value of the property as such any reliance could not be placed on his valuation of the plots

Thus it could not be concluded that the plots were sold on throwaway prices as no proper market valuation of the plots was made by an expert who was qualified to do the same

In fact the value of the adjacent plots was not even ascertained or a sale deed in respect of such plots ever collected to consider the market prices of the plots nor attempts were made to ascertain the actual market value of the plots as admitted by the Investigating Officer

Prosecution alleged that the plots were allotted to relatives, favorites and kith and kin of appellant/Administrator, however there was no evidence to that effect

All the evidence suggested that all the beneficiaries who purchased the plots were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice that there was any defect in their title

Investigating Officer himself had conceded in his evidence that no loss was caused to the government exchequer

Beneficiaries also had no criminal intent in buying the plots as they would not have known about any alleged criminality by accused persons in allegedly revising the original plan and converting amenity plots into commercial plots in order to make a profit

Precise plot numbers which the beneficiaries allegedly purchased at throwaway prices were not even put to them during their S.342 Cr.P.C statements nor they were confronted as to whether they were favorites or kith and kin of appellant/Administrator and as such any evidence to that effect was discarded and could not be used to convict them

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 million by revising the layout of the Society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

As per record, the prosecution gave up eight witnesses without explanation

Under Art.129(g) Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, an adverse inference could be drawn that in their evidence they would not have supported the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to Public Exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 Million by revising the layout of the society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Record showed that the original lay out plan was never exhibited in evidence or even seen by the Trial Court as admitted by Investigating Officer

Only an attested copy of the original lay out plan was exhibited

No reason was given as to why the prosecution was not able to exhibit the original lay out plan or even showed it to the Court and then return it as this was the usual practice

It was not known as to where the attested copy came from and its veracity remained unproven

Revised lay out plan was not exhibited at trial or even produced at Court for the Court to see

Not even an attested copy of the revised lay out plan was produced instead only an ordinary photo copy of the carbon copy was produced without any explanation as to why the original or even an attested copy of the revised lay out plan could not be produced

It was not known where the photocopy of carbon copy of the revised plan came from and its veracity also remained unproven

Under these circumstances said copy documents were inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Arts. 72 to 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and ought to have been excluded by the Trial Court from consideration

Thus both of those documents (copies of the original lay out plan and revised lay out plan) were inadmissible in evidence and were to be excluded from consideration as they remained unproven

Hence it was almost impossible to prove which areas were, if any, converted from amenity plots to commercial/residential plots or where they were relocated to within the society and whether it was in fact amenity plots which were sold to the beneficiary appellants

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the respondents were that they caused loss of huge amount to the government exchequer due to their negligence

At this stage, there was lack of evidence to demonstrate the acquisition of any monetary benefits by the accused or the party allegedly benefitting from the misuse of authority

As such, the case against the accused/respondents required further enquiry

Despite the serious nature of the charges, it was undisputed that the accused had complied with the conditions of their bail, and were attending every Court hearing without misuse of the concession granted to them

Mere gravity of the offence does not, in itself, justify the deprivation of personal liberty, particularly for an indefinite period

Object of bail is to secure the appearance of an accused at his trial by a reasonable amount for bail, it is neither punitive nor preventive, and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered as punishment, unless it might be required to ensure the presence of the accused during trial

Prosecution could not point out from the record as to whether the respondents had violated any of the conditions, which could become the basis for cancellation of bail granted to them

Petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused were involved in misuse of their authority and misappropriation of government funds

From the perusal of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it seemed that out of eight witnesses, in the evidence of four witnesses, nowhere the name of accused/appellant was found mentioned, whereas two witnesses had made certain statements/admissions which were against the prosecution version and went in favour of the accused

In such view of the matter, it could safely be observed that the said two witnesses had not supported the case of prosecution so far as the allegations against appellant was concerned, rather their evidence supported the version of the accused /appellant

So far as the evidence of SubAccountant was concerned, although in his evidence he had stated that level one was used by Divisional Accounts Officer and accused as IDs were allotted to them by the Accountant General into the SAP System, however, in his cross-examination said witness had admitted in clear terms that firstly the said ID used to be applied by the office of DAO and thereafter the Divisional Accounts Officer used to apply his ID, meaning thereby that said ID was also in the knowledge and use of other persons working in the office of DAO

In such view of the matter, appellant alone, without inclusion of others, could not be held to be responsible for using the said ID for any illegal purpose as alleged

Said witness had also improved/exaggerated his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. as he had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state in his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement regarding the usage of level one by the then Divisional Accounts Officers whereas such fact had been stated by him in his deposition, which was fatal to the prosecution case

So far as the evidence of Investigating Officer was concerned, neither he was an eye-witness, nor was he working in the Highway Division but his evidence was based on the information given by the officials of Highway Division or bank employees

Furthermore, the trial Court while dealing with the case of acquitted accused had disbelieved the evidence of that witness and had not given any weight to the same

In that view of the matter, once the prosecution evidence was disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then it could not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused were involved in misuse of their authority and misappropriation of government funds

Record showed that the trial Court while convicting the present appellant, on the basis of same set of the evidence, had acquitted one accused who was working as Senior Clerk in the Highway Division at the relevant time and against whom the allegation was that he had misappropriated government funds and his liability was calculated to be more than the liability of present accused/appellant

Rule of consistency demanded that if the trial Court had disbelieved the evidence in respect of a co-accused, the same could not be relied upon for convicting other accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for misappropriating 28261 wheat bags and causing loss of Rs. 89,183,430/- to the government exchequer

As per record, the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the offence for which he was charged based on both oral and documentary evidence

However, accused was an old man with poor health condition and he had already undergone substantial part of sentence recorded by the Court

It would be in the ends of justice to reduce the sentence already inflicted upon the accused from fourteen years to the period he had already served while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs.89, 183, 430/

Appeal was disposed of in the said terms.

On death of accused during pendency of appeal against conviction, appeal finally abated, except an appeal from sentence of fine

Legal heir/widow of deceased accused challenged conviction against deceased accused to the extent of sentence of fine

Bank statements were not sent to handwriting expert

Deceased accused was posted as typist in the Bank and there was no office order to show that deceased was working as ledger keeper in the Bank

Bank statement with effect from 01-02-1999 till year 2003, were fake and contained signatures of deceased accused

Deceased accused was transferred from concerned branch of bank to another branch on 4.9.2001 and it was not possible for deceased accused to prepare Bank statements for the period for which he was not posted in branch in question

Prosecution failed to prove its case against deceased accused at trial

Such was case of acquittal against deceased accused but as accused had already expired proceedings against him stood abated

High Court set aside sentence of fine imposed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss. 4 (2)(b), 9 (a) & (b) [as amended by National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act (XVI of 2022)]

Corruption and corrupt practices

Bail, grant of

Completion of codal formalities

Oral evidence

Petitioner was arrested for exerting his influence for approval of a dual carriageway

Project was approved by CDWP and ECNEC, after completion of all legal and codal formalities, and the contract was awarded to M/s Frontier Works Organization

In the light of S.4(2)(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, matter of petitioner did not fall within the ambit of National Accountability Bureau

There was no other evidence available against petitioner except statements of two witnesses

Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment

There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds exist to disclose their complicity

Ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail after arrest granted to him but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Works done and executed by contractors under the supervision of the Assistant Executive Engineer not as per specifications and payments made in the measurement books

Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail, dismissal of

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did not seek the arrest of any of the accused persons during the course of initial inquiry or during the investigation

Counsel for NAB was unable to explain why NAB sought their arrest now, at present stage, given that the Reference had been filed and the matter was now before the Trial Court

Furthermore, the accused persons had fully cooperated during the course of the investigation, as they had been attending all proceedings and did not misuse the concession of bail

According to the prosecution they were no longer required for investigation

Further, NAB had taken into possession all the relevant record and no recovery was to be effected from the accused persons

Contents of the Reference showed that the role of each of the accused had yet to be proven with reference to the work allegedly done by each contractor contrary to the measurement books

Similarly, in each case, it had yet to be determined the exact loss caused to the government exchequer and the benefit derived by the accused persons

Hence, the accused persons had to face trial for a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction about their involvement with the Assistant Executive Engineer (co-accused) and the monetary gains made, if any

Petitions for leave to appeal seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused persons were dismissed, and leave was refused.

Respondents were charged to the effect that they being holders of public office in connivance with each other misused their authority and by means of corrupt, dishonest and illegal means caused loss of Rs. 3,80,22,566/- to the government exchequer as in execution of the schemes they violated the procedure laid down by rules and received commission/illegal gratification from the contractors

Record showed that the witness compiled report without visiting the site

Said witness in cross-examination stated that over payments were made by Chairman Town Committee and admitted that the schemes were approved by the Secretary Local Government, Chairman and members of District Council

Other witness in cross-examination admitted that compilation of measure book was the duty of Sub-Engineer

One of the respondents was posted as Assistant Engineer

Schemes were pertaining to year, 1999, whereas witnesses compiled their reports after lapse of two or three years of execution

Allegation of 35% commission by the accused persons from the contractors was without any substance to the extent of private respondents

None of the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused persons/ respondents had received commission from the contractors

Seven witnesses/ contractors had categorically stated that they had paid commission to another witness

Said witness who had admitted receiving of commission from contractors had not been made accused

Prosecution had failed to collect direct evidence in regard of taking commission by the accused/ respondents from any contractor

Prosecution had also failed to collect any evidence regarding Bank accounts of the accused/respondents to show that any commission was received by the accused/ respondent or deposited in their accounts

Mere fact that a person stand charged for trial in the Accountability Court did not give rise to a presumption of guilt in respect of offence

Initial burden lay on prosecution to establish necessary facts to show that the accused had misused his authority so as to gain any benefit for himself or for any other person

Circumstances established that prosecution was unable to show that the acquittal judgment of the Trial Court suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents were charged that they being holders of public office in connivance with each other misused their authority and by means of corrupt, dishonest and illegal means caused loss of Rs. 3,80,22,566/- to the government exchequer as in execution of the schemes they violated the procedure laid down by rules and received commission/illegal gratification from the contractors

Record revealed that on same set of evidence three accused had been acquitted

Admittedly, the evidence in cases of acquittal and conviction was apprised in different prospective

On perusal of record of the Trial Court it was found that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence

Trial Court had considered the material produced before it and had discussed the evidence in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the accusation

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused sought concession of pre-arrest bail in an enquiry/investigation initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

Accused was alleged to have excavated sand without authorization/permission

Held; accused was an authorized contractor of Mines and Minerals Department and he was authorized/permitted by the Department for mining of sand and bajri over an area of 100 acres of land

Pleas of prosecution and defence agitated at bar were to be examined at final stage by the Trial Court after recording of evidence and forming of such an opinion before commencement of trial was against the norms of criminal justice

Accused was a private person holding no public office and the proceedings had been initiated against him on the basis of a private complaint, as such, the question of mala fide on the part of complainant and possibility of false implication could not be ruled out and the case of prosecution qua the guilt of the accused required further probe

Accused had appeared before the Investigating Officer and his physical custody was not required by the Investigating Officer

Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was allowed.

Dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment, common intention

Corruption and corrupt practices

Bail, grant of

Accused persons, officials of Passport Office, were alleged to have issued passports to minors on the basis of fake B-Form

Passports in question were issued on the basis of FRC (Family Registration Certificate) issued by NADRA

Nothing was available on record to show that for preparation of passports in question, the accused persons had taken any illegal bribe

Accused persons were government officials, as such, there was no apprehension that they would abscond after getting bail

Investigating Agency had already collected the evidence, so, there was no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused persons

Investigation had already been completed and report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., had been sent to the Trial Court

There was no prospect of earlier conclusion of the trial and the accused persons could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period without determining their guilt by the Court of competent jurisdiction

Accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Petitioners were taken into custody by the National Accountability Bureau on the ground that they had committed an offense as defined in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

While facing trial, the petitioners remained in judicial custody

In the meantime, an amendment was introduced in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which removed the petitioners from the jurisdiction of the Accountability Court

Accountability Court refused to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and directed the Bureau to produce the petitioners before the competent forum in time

Validity

Amendment in subsections (o) & (s) of S. 5 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, had removed the petitioners from the category of offenders under the Ordinance, as the alleged plundered amount was less than five hundred million rupees

Custody of the petitioners could be regulated in accordance with the mandate of S. 167 read with S. 344 of the Cr.P.C., but it would serve only a limited purpose of regulating the custody of the accused

It would not address the question of under which offense the accused had been kept in custody for an indefinite and unbridled period

No person could be left without remedy in any circumstance, especially when life and liberty were at stake

Constitutional petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioners were released on bail.

Land of appellants along with others was compulsorily acquired for the construction of a project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984

Prosecution case was that although the appellants and other accused were entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to some extent but they managed to obtain excess payments based on forged and fabricated Form-B

As a result, they were not entitled to such compensation

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) deemed this act as an offense of corruption and corrupt practices under S. 9(a)(iv) & (ix) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Accountability Court convicted the appellants

Validity

Trial Court while proceeding afresh against the appellants after remand of the matter by the Supreme Court, though re-examined prosecution's available witnesses, however, while doing so, neither the prosecution, nor the Trial Court brought on record the documents which were earlier exhibited by these witnesses in the earlier trial against the main/remaining accused

None of the alleged forged and fabricated Form-B or for that matter Form-VII, were brought in evidence

Not even in the earlier evidence

Since they were never produced, as such, were never referred to any hand writing expert

In such circumstances, when the very basic document which was alleged to be forged was never brought on record before the Trial Court, it could not have come to conclusion as to which of the forms were genuine and which were not

This was the entire basis of the allegation against the appellants; and once it was not produced before the trial Court, how could a person be convicted for such an offence was beyond comprehension

Procedure adopted by the Trial Court was not only irregular; but apparently was an illegality which could not be cured in any manner

Prosecution had failed to being any convincing material before the trial Court so as to fully implicate the appellants

Appeals were allowed, in circumstances.

Case against accused persons was that they, in connivance with each other, illegally appointed seventy-eight persons in District Health Office without issuance of advertisement and formation of District Recruitment Committee

Role assigned to the accused persons was similar to the other accused persons who had been given the concession of bail

Investigation had been completed and there was no likelihood that the accused could either tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses

Accused who was District Health Officer at the time was one of the decision makers in the entire episode, and his role, obligation and responsibility was different from other co-accused

Accused persons were admitted bail subject to furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- while the bail of District Health Officer was held to be contingent upon furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rupees Five Million.

Many co-accused persons whose role was prima facie worse than the present accused persons, had not even been arrested, thus the accused persons could not be treated differently

Question as to why such pick and choose and what underlay this duality was not intelligible

Special Prosecutor NAB could also not provide a satisfactory answer as to the intelligible differentia justifying the classification between the arrested and those left at large

Although the role of the accused persons prima facie appeared to be culpable and they must face its consequences but not at present stage when many others similarly placed persons were at large

Supreme Court observed that while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction it would not like to pass an order perpetuating a classification which prima face did not appear to be based on an intelligible differentia notwithstanding the provision contained in section 24(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, and ad-interim bail of some of the accused persons were confirmed, while other accused persons were granted post-arrest bail.

In a case where the primary offence of criminal breach of trust under section 405, P.P.C. is not made out, the charge for the offences under section 9(a)(x) & (xi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 cannot sustain.

Accused was convicted for fraudulently receiving money from the members of the public under the guise of a fake housing scheme without any allotment or delivery of physical possession of plots to the allottees and dishonestly converting it to his own use

Accused had purchased a piece of land measuring 23 acres wherein a housing scheme was announced and the payment of the said land was to be completed in five years

Total number of persons who had sought booking in the scheme were 412

During this period, a dispute arose between accused and vendor

Vendor had obtained stay orders from the Civil Court, as such the accused had failed to develop the scheme

Out of 412 only 10 allottees had appeared before the Court

Two of the said witnesses had admitted in cross-examination that they had not paid the complete consideration amounts to the accused

Investigating Officer had admitted that the scheme had not matured due to civil litigation

Legislature from the expression "public at large" had intended to focus the public at macro level

Expression did not aim at the offences committed at the micro level

Prosecution in order to attract the mischief of S. 9(a)(ix) and (x) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was obliged to bring on record that the accused was found guilty of defrauding the public at large scale

Prosecution had only produced ten witnesses and such a small faction of the society did not fall within the definition of expression "public at large"

Case was one of civil dispute based upon alleged breach of the agreement for which remedies laid somewhere other than in a criminal court

Appeal was accepted and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Petitioner sought reduction of surety amount which was fixed by the Division Bench of High Court while allowing the petitioner's request for bail

Validity

Petition was not signed and supported with the affidavit of petitioner

Vakalatnama could not be treated as an affidavit of petitioner

Affidavit of facts about the financial status of petitioner that whether he was capable of submitting the surety or not, could not be sworn by lawyer engaged by him after obtaining the consent order for submitting the pay order equivalent to the alleged misappropriation

If the petitioner was aggrieved by any observation of the Bench, he should have filed petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

High Court on receipt of reference from the Accountability Court regarding conduct of the accused who was on pre-arrest bail, converted the same into an application to re-call the pre-arrest bail

High Court observed that the accused, who had been extended the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, had refused to proceed with his cross-examination in the face of direct orders of the High Court to proceed with the matter on a day-to-day basis and the order of the Trial Court to proceed with his cross-examination when there was no stay in the field and no stay on proceedings was applied for preventing the matter from proceeding

Accused had misused/abused the concession of bail granted to him by the High Court, which was recalled and he was directed to be taken into custody, in circumstances.

Fact that prosecution had not made any material progress was but obvious from its utter inability to adduce evidence of main witnesses thus far

Prosecution had not made a any effort or clamour to counter or offset protraction of the trials by seeking their urgent hearing rather, it had remained hibernated and content conveniently at a snail's pace instead of upping the ante, as required, to engender urgency in the matters

Petitioner, meanwhile, had completed more than 24 months in jail and there was nothing the prosecution could boast of qua its obligation to pursue the matters efficiently, and which, otherwise if done, could have been deemed sufficient to stave off consequences; the delay had since brought about in favour of the petitioner

Configuration divesting the accused of his right to expeditious disposal of the trial had definitely induced a sense calling for a set-up, which of course was temporary in nature and subject to inference to be made at the end of trial regarding accused person's guilt or otherwise, to mitigate the peril he was in for no fault of him

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Petitioner was Chairman Municipal Committee who was suspended from the post on the allegations of misconduct and corruption

Validity

In law suspension was not defined as punishment and did not finally determine the matter

Sole purpose of suspension was that the person against whom severe allegations of misconduct, flagrant abuse of powers and disgraceful conduct was levelled could be restrained from causing further damage to finances of the institution

Suspension order was interim in character and did not attain any finality

Against adverse result of inquiry, if any, petitioner had the remedy of appeal and in presence of such adequate remedy, High Court at such juncture declined to step in to declare the suspension of petitioner illegal and void on the ground that order of suspension was not passed by competent authority

Objection of petitioner on his suspension was technical and procedural

Petitioner was facing allegations of corruption and in such circumstances, High Court refrained to exercise discretion in his favour and thwart the whole process of inquiry against him and set aside his suspension on any of the technical ground

Such would amount to interfering in the right of authority to inquire into allegations against petitioner

Petitioner was not prejudiced by his suspension

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Most important witness of the prosecution against accused had deposed that the accused had brought Bank account opening form of a dead person for verification of his signature and the same was verified by him and that the account opening form was not bearing the signature of the said person while that witness during the cross-examination has stated that the Bank Manager gave him the form with direction to verify the signature of accused as an introducer

Investigation report submitted by the Investigating Officer had conceded that there was no tangible evidence against the accused in connection with the commission of the crime

Sufficient evidence did not exist to connect the accused with the scam particularly when there was no transaction in the said account and there was no possibility of his conviction in the reference

Acquittal of accused did not suffer from any illegality to call for interference with the impugned order

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Investigation had been completed but the trial had not, even though there was a direction for conclusion of trial within 6 months

Accused was not in a position to either temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses

Where sickness and ailment of the accused was such that some specialized treatment was needed, which was not available within the premises of jail and his continued detention was hazardous to his life, the accused could be enlarged on bail

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Progress report from the Trial Court revealed that no delay was caused by either of the accused persons or counsel acting on their behalf

Only two out of the proposed 72 prosecution witnesses had given evidence

Accountability Court had been vacant for over 5 months and the delay in filling the vacant posts squarely fell on the shoulders of the Federal Government, who instead of ensuring the right to expeditious trial under Art.10-A of the Constitution and as per the Preamble to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and S.16(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for reasons best known to itself seemed to be unreasonably delaying the appointment of Accountability Court Judges

Tallat Ishaq's case [PLD 2019 SC 112] had made the grant of bail more stringent on hardship grounds but it had not excluded same and it was allowed in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the court

Accused persons had made out a case for grant of bail on hardship grounds, which was accordingly granted.

Accused persons were facing trial before Special Judge Anti-Corruption who after completion of trial, transferred case to Accountability Court for decision

Accountability Court assumed jurisdiction and convicted and sentenced accused persons

Validity

Transfer of case from any other court to Accountability Court and its assumption of jurisdiction in a manner not provided in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was not valid

While making a decision on such an issue of fundamental nature accused persons were required to be heard but no such effort was made at any level

Accused persons were facing trial in offenses less stringent in punishment and then suddenly without being extended an opportunity of hearing they were made to face trial under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which carried harsher punishments

Such an approach was not only against natural norms of justice but resulted in abridgment of right of accused persons to a fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Transfer of case in such manner had translated in curtailment of powers of Chairman NAB or an officer of NAB acting on his behalf provided under S.18 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which had stipulated a preliminary scrutiny of received material/complaint by him and forming an opinion to initiate proceedings and referring matter against accused for inquiry and investigation

Taking cognizance of offences and assuming jurisdiction by Accountability Court was illegal and proceedings that followed were coram non judice

High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by Accountability Court and remanded matter to Special Court Anti-Corruption to proceed with the matter

Special Court Anti-Corruption had no jurisdiction to refer matter to Accountability Court under S.16-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Material ?brought on record prima facie showed that ??investments were received from the general public and deposited in bank accounts operated in the ??names of the regulated persons (companies) as ?well as in the ?personal name of the accused

Inducement to ?the public was also through a purported entity, which was not a regulated ?person as defined ?under the Securities and ?Exchange Commission of ?Pakistan Act, 1997

National Accountability ?Bureau had initiated an ?inquiry against the accused relating to alleged ?acts amounting to the ?offence of cheating the ?public at large

Later, the ?Securities and ?Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) ?had ?sent a reference in exercise of powers conferred ?under S. 41-B of the Securities and ?Exchange ?Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997

Reference ?was found to be in consonance with the ?provisions ?of the Companies Act, 2017 read with ?the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997

National Accountability Bureau was vested with the power and ?jurisdiction to initiate ?proceedings against the ?accused for the alleged ?acts relating to a ?purported entity other than a regulated person ?defined under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Likewise, the proceedings pursuant to receiving a reference from the Commission did not suffer from ?jurisdictional ?error nor any other legal infirmity

Sufficient incriminating material had ?been brought ?on record by the National Accountability Bureau against the accused

Accused was also reluctant to effectively cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigations

Constitutional petitions seeking pre-arrest bail, challenging call up notices and ?sending of reference by the SECP were dismissed.

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under S. 41-B of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, has the exclusive power to send a reference to the National Accountability Bureau for initiating an inquiry, investigation and other proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, relating to a regulated person

Reference would be regarding proceedings relating to the offences of corruption and corrupt practices described under S. 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Powers under S. 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 can be exercised by the Commission notwithstanding proceedings concluded or penalties imposed under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, or the Companies Act, 2017, as the case may be.

Plain reading of S. 41-B as a whole unambiguously affirms that the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau is not barred but the proceedings relating to a regulated person under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are subject to receiving a reference from the Commission

Reference in the context of S. 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, is not regarding any matter that falls within the ambit of the powers and jurisdiction of the Commission under the Companies Act, 2017 or Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, as the case may

Reference is, rather, for initiating proceedings and taking action relating to a regulated person for an offence triable under a distinct statute

Incorporated or regulated person may have 'cheated public at large' which is an offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

No provision exists under the Companies Act, 2017, or Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 empowering the Commission to proceed against the delinquents nor to recover the illegally invested funds of the general public.

Power and jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau is not barred relating to a regulated person and a regulated ?activity but its ??exercise is subject to receiving a ?reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

Restrictions and conditions prescribed under S. 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission ?of Pakistan ??Act, 1997 are not attracted nor ?applicable in case of persons who do not fall ?within the ambit of the ??definition of 'regulated ?person'

SECP enjoys the ?exclusive power ?to send a reference ?and no party ?before it is ?competent to put the ?provisions of the ?National ?Accountability Ordinance, 1999, into ?motion

In ?order to initiate ?proceedings against ?an ?unregulated person or ?activity, the exercise of ??power and jurisdiction by ?the National Accountability Bureau are not subject to ?a reference by the SECP nor subject to any ?other condition.

Combined reading of the Companies Act, 2017 ?and the Securities and Exchange ??Commission of ?Pakistan Act, 1997, shows that the provisions deal ?with all matters relating to the regulation of ?incorporated juridical persons and matters ?incidental and ancillary thereto

Two statutes provide for a comprehensive and self-contained regulatory framework governing the corporate ?sector and incorporated entities

Heading of ?S. 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, explicitly restricts the scope of the inquiry, investigation or any other proceedings in respect of a 'regulated person'

Regulated person has been defined under clause (pb) of subsection (1) of S. 2 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997

Statutes listed in Schedule I have been declared as 'administered legislation' under S. 2(1)(aa)

Expression 'regulated person', therefore, extends to only such persons or entities which are licensed or registered under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 or one of the statutes listed in Schedule I

Section 2(1)(pa) defines the expression 'regulated activity' as any activity which is required to be registered with or licensed by the Commission under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 or one of the 'administered legislations'

Scope of the restrictions or powers of the Commission under S. 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 are confined to an inquiry, ?investigation or any proceedings relating to a ?regulated person and a regulated activity

Wordings and language used in the two sub-?sections of S. 41-B further affirms that its scope is confined to an inquiry, investigation or other ?proceedings relating to any regulatory activity of a ?regulated person

Plain reading of subsections (1) & (2) of S. 41-B clearly shows that the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau ?relating to a regulatory activity of a ?regulated ?person is not ?absolutely barred but rather its ?exercise has been expressly made subject to sending a reference by ?the ?Commission

Clear distinction exists in subsection (2) between a ??'party' and the 'Commission'

Such distinction is crucial for ?discovering the legislative ?intent.

All the accused persons arrested in the case had been released on bail after arrest hence the accused was also entitled for the grant of bail after arrest on the principle of consistency

Entire case depended on documentary evidence which had already been collected by the investigating agency

Prosecution had failed to satisfy the Court that the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial was not partly attributable to it

Writ petition was allowed and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he played a key role as President of a bank in preparation of fraudulent proposal, in the approval of loan facility for a company, in line with the plan of the then President of Pakistan

Approval of the projected proposal was also shared with the National Bank of Pakistan which was owned by Government of Pakistan and the same resulted in withdrawal of equity

Accused had also taken illegal gratification for the purchase of a house in the name of his wife

Held; accused suffered from several diseases

All the accused persons arrested in the case had been released on bail after arrest, hence, the accused was also entitled for the grant of bail after arrest on the principle of consistency

Entire case depended on documentary evidence which had already been collected by the investigating agency

Prosecution had failed to satisfy the Court that the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial was not partly attributed to it

Constitutional petition was allowed and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) claimed that the funds from the finance facility were diverted to the use of third parties, which was not the purpose of such facility, as such, the accused was liable to be arrested for the purposes of investigation

High Court observed that flow of funds was fully documented and it was unclear how an offense of corruption or dishonesty was made out under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, even where a private company had utilized proceeds from a loan in a manner not contemplated at the time of acquisition of such loan, so far as such company was in a position to settle the loan

At best this would amount to a breach of the terms of the finance facility that would empower the bank to declare that a breach of the terms of the loan had taken place and demand that the loan be settled immediately

Accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Requirements of conducting an inquiry or investigation in relation to a violent crime versus a white-collar crime cannot be lost on a constitutional court exercising judicial review powers over the state's decision to arrest a citizen

Consequently, the distinction between pre-arrest and post-arrest bail as understood in relation to investigation of offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 might not be as pertinent in relation to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Restraint applied by granting more leeway to the police in its exercise of arrest powers under S. 54 of Cr.P.C. is in consonance with the settled law that courts loath to interfere with the conduct of investigation, which falls within the domain of the executive, and the discretion exercised by the police in collecting evidence for purposes of prosecution or detention of an accused to prevent a repeat of the offence or destruction of evidence in the immediate aftermath of a crime having been committed

However, the concept of physical recovery of incriminating evidence, including weapon, or management of the crime scene does not equally apply to white-collar crime as it does to violent crime

As white-collar crime undertaken by public office holders largely involves documentary evidence, which is often in the custody of State or regulatory authorities or juristic persons, which cannot be easily destroyed by an individual accused, considerations such as preservation and collection of evidence or prevention of a repeat offence posing a threat to the public if the accused is not apprehended, are not fully attracted in the investigation of white-collar crime.

Principles governing grant of pre-arrest bail, provided.

Companies Act, 2017, was an "administered legislation" as defined in S. 2(aa) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997

Transactions involving sale and purchase of shares of companies were transactions undertaken pursuant to the Companies Act, 2017, administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission

Section 41-B(1) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, provided that no action, inquiry, investigation or proceedings in respect of any regulated activity, regulated securities activity, transaction, process or permission granted under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, or administered legislation would be taken, initiated or conducted by any investigation agency without reference from the Commission

Nothing was placed on record to establish that investigation in the share purchase transactions of the company were initiated on a reference from the Commission

Constitutional petition was allowed and the accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Section 51 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 defines entry in a benami transaction as an offense under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 and prescribes rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for anyone guilty of the offense of benami transaction or holding benami property

Prosecution of such offense lies before a Special Court under S. 48 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 and not before an Accountability Court

Section 56 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 grants overriding effect to provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, promulgated in 2017, over anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force, including the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.