Acquiring assets beyond known sources of income

By owning the assets though burden shifted on accused but still it was prosecution who had to establish that sources shown by accused firstly during inquiry/investigation and secondly before Accountability Court, were not legal or not in conformity with his properties

Investigating officer on each occasion failed to properly investigate the matter

Investigating Officer was obliged to investigate each and every aspect of case keeping in view the defence version taken by accused at the time of investigation

Prosecution was supposed to have discovered and proved the known sources of accused

Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal was narrow and limited as in acquittal presumption of innocence was significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisdiction and accused was presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and such presumption of innocence was doubled

High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by Accountability Court in favour of accused

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Widow and son of deceased accused claimed to be owners of the properties forfeited by Trial Court, as the same were purchased by their own independent sources of income

Validity

Details of properties purchased and sold by deceased accused revealed that spouses had purchased land and plots on meager amount and sold out the same on handsome price which had boasted their income quickly

Findings of Trial Court with regard to guilt of deceased accused were based on mere presumptions and assumption

Assumptions and presumption how high might be could not be a substitute of evidence

Deceased accused through evidence led by him in defence had successfully rebutted allegation of prosecution

Prosecution failed to prove its case through cogent and confidence inspiring documentary and oral evidence

Even a shred of evidence was not brought by prosecution to prove corruption and corrupt practices of deceased accused and widow while they were serving in service of Pakistan

High Court set aside sentence of fine imposed by Trial Court to the extent of forfeiture of properties in the name of deceased accused and his dependents including his widow and son

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Accused is always presumed to be innocent and onus of proving commission of offence and guilt of accused lies on prosecution

Exception has been provided under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to such rule and has been provided in S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Notwithstanding presumption contained in S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, initial burden of proof always rests on prosecution

Burden to prove all ingredients of charge always 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

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

Initial burden of proof is on prosecution to establish possession of properties by an accused disproportionate to his known sources of income to prove charge of corruption and corrupt practices under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Once such burden is satisfactorily discharged, the onus is shifted to accused to prove the contrary and to give a satisfactory account of holding the properties.

National Accountability Bureau was aggrieved of order passed by Accountability Court whereby accused persons were acquitted of charge in exercise of powers under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Persons having no nexus with corruption or corrupt practices specifically defined under S. 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, jurisdiction of National Accountability Bureau could not be extended to such persons holding or accumulating properties privately through any legal business

National Accountability Bureau could not harass, inquire and investigate against any person who stood alone having no remote or direct or indirect nexus with offences, described/prescribed under S. 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 or incidental and ancillary thereto

Accused persons were acquitted as charge framed against them did not disclose any offence in view of S. 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and evidence was shaky

No evidence was brought on record that accused persons were involved in any offence of tax evasion, cheating, fraud, corruption or corrupt practices

Accused persons had huge property but same was not concealed and was well mentioned in income tax returns and same was confirmed by relevant prosecution witnesses themselves

Prosecution failed to prove that concerned business of accused persons were illegal

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

National Accountability Bureau has not invested with unbridled, general jurisdiction to inquire into and investigate against each and every person having accumulated properties on any pretext that such properties were not outcome of corruption and corrupt practices and shift burden in terms of S. 14 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to such person who has no nexus with matters enumerated in Preamble of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 or with provisions contained in S. 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

In a trial under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 initial burden continues to be on prosecution and it is only when it has rendered a reasonable proof before Trial Court in respect of guilt of accused, onus shifts on accused to prove his innocence by showing that properties were acquired through lawful means.

Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for holding assets beyond his known sources of income as there were high volume of credit transactions in five Bank accounts in the names of his sons and daughters

Validity

Deliberate omission on the part of prosecution in not providing opportunity of explanation to such five account holders was fatal for holding such charge as 'not proved' which could either be dealing with such persons as 'accused' least a 'witness' at initial stage of investigation

Prosecution could claim no advantage of its own wrongs or omissions rather would face the consequence which was surely to tilt the scale of criminal administration of justice in favour of accused

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Accused could not be held responsible for having owned the properties purchased through unknown sources of income or illegitimate means

Prosecution had not urged that accused was required to explain the specific source beyond known sources of income

Accused was made to explain his legal source of income and in response to the same, he not only produced his own defence witnesses but had also explained his entire assets and had reasonably explained the source to purchase those assets which were in the form of profits in various business which he had declared in his wealth statements and income tax returns as well as in declaration form prescribed for a government servant

Merely by showing details of assets and without disclosing source of income, prosecution was not successful in shifting onus to accused to prove his innocence

High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and acquitted accused of the charge and also released properties in question

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Declaration for the purpose of income tax and wealth tax cannot be used to ascertain source of income to determine assets beyond means of accused by National Accountability Bureau.

Accused was holder of public office and was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for seven years imprisonment along with fine

Validity

No notice was issued to alleged Benamidar prior to confiscation of property, the same was fatal to prosecution case

In a case of assets beyond means, prior to discussing assets, the known source of income both legal and illegal had to be brought on record

Trial Court fixed value of properties but nowhere salary of accused for last 41 years, his savings and his other emoluments were even discussed

Court had no formula to apply in order to ascertain as to what were the assets beyond means

High Court disagreed with the findings of Trial Court and set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, resultantly he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Prosecution has to establish four ingredients mentioned in S.14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and then burden shifts upon accused to explain his position as required under S.14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.