Assets beyond means

2022 YLRN 159 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(a)(v), (b) & 14(c)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionBail, refusal ofAssets beyond meansPresumptionShifting of onus to provePrinciplePetitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for having assets beyond his known sources of incomeValidityMere possession of any pecuniary resources or property by itself is not an offenceFailure of accused to satisfy account for such possession constitutes an offence

If accused cannot explain, the presumption under S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, that accused is guilty of corruption and corrupt practices and acquired assets beyond his sources is required to be drawn

Evidence brought on record read with presumption under S. 14 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, established alleged charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt

No mala fide or ill will was pointed out against investigating officer or NAB authorities

Material on record prima facie connected accused with alleged offence

Bail was declined in circumstances.

2020 MLD 696 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(a)(v) & 14Allegation of misuse of authorityAssets beyond meansPresumptionScope

Unless misuse of authority under S. 9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is established, accused cannot be called upon to prove his "innocence" within meaning of S. 14 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

2017 YLRN 437 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.9(a)(iv) & (b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionPre-arrest bail, refusal ofAssets beyond meansCash flow chart

Petitioners were husband and wife and National Accountability Bureau had prepared a reference against them for having assets beyond known sources of income

Validity

Reference was based upon cash flow chart providing all incomes and reasonable expenditures

Transactions from bank accounts were considered in cash flow chart and same were found to be disproportionate to known sources of their income calculated on year-wise basis

Total liability of petitioners was calculated to be Rs.124,172,804

Mala fides could not be attributed to National Accountability Bureau where incomes were brought forward

Once incomes were present on record it was a matter of consideration to be made by Trial Court in conclusion, findings of which were yet to come

Petitioners failed to show that any violation to their Fundamental Rights was caused or even attempted as alleged

High Court could only make a tentative assessment of material placed on record; and declined to quash proceedings against petitioners

Prima facie sufficient material existed to connect petitioners to offence charged and there was no mala fide on part of National Accountability Bureau

Pre-arrest bail was denied in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 1921 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(a)(iv) & (b)Pre-arrest bail, refusal ofAssets beyond meansVoluntary return option

Petitioner was a holder of public office and allegation raised against him was acquiring of assets beyond known sources of his income

Petitioner claimed to have agricultural income who also opted for Voluntary Return option but the same was declined

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail as NAB intended to arrest him

Validity

Petitioner changed his story and claimed that money in his accounts came from his agricultural income

Amount of agricultural income as assessed by NAB was based on a report of concerned revenue authorities and the same was prepared under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner

Agricultural income of petitioner was far less than he claimed and he could not have accounted for the transactions in his business accounts

Petitioner approached NAB for Voluntary Return option which was declined by NAB

Analysis of income and assets of petitioner by NAB were correctly investigated and tabulated as required by law and he was connected to the offence as charged

Pre-arrest bail was declined in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 161 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(a)(iv) & 10Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.431Corruption and corrupt practicesAssets beyond meansAppreciation of evidenceDeath of accusedFine, imposition ofAccused was convicted by Trial Court for acquiring assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of incomeAccused did not deny acquisition of assets however claimed to have acquired them through lawful sources of incomeValidity

Accused claimed that plot for residential house was purchased by his father-in-law for his wife and house was constructed on it, however prosecution witness who was previous owner of the plot deposed before Trial Court that the same was purchased by the accused

Allegations of expenses incurred on education of children by accused as well as performance of Umra and fare of UK, were proved by prosecution through oral and documentary evidence

Prosecution witnesses were found consistent and confidence inspiring and their stance could not be shattered despite lengthy and taxing cross-examination, whereas accused produced cryptic and inconsistent evidence, which was rightly not believed

Trial Court after scrutinizing material available on record convicted and sentenced accused and counsel for accused failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence, justifying interference by High Court

Judgment passed by Trial Court was in accordance with law and material available on record

Accused had died, therefore, his sentence stood abated, however High Court maintained fine imposed by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.