Freezing of property

2026 PLD 32 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 13Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23 & 24Constitutional petitionFreezing of propertyPurchase of such property

Petitioner was aggrieved of freezing order passed against property in question which was owned by accused in a NAB case, which property had been frozen way back in the year 2007 and was sold through accused person's general attorney who happened to be his sister

Validity

Accused person or any other aggrieved party may file claim or objection under S.13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to a freezing order

Purchaser of frozen property was a third party who could redress grievance under S.13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

High Court declined to interfere in freezing order as petitioner had wrongly pleaded that they had no knowledge or there was no note of caution given to them at the time of attestation of sale mutation in their favour

Provision of S.23 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was not in conflict with Arts.23 and 24 of the Constitution on the principle of reasonable restriction imposed by law

Petitioners did not have any right of hearing as they had got knowledge of freezing order in the event of Reference filed in year 2020 but they did not file any objection or claim

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 PLD 177 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 12Freezing of propertyExercise of powerEssential conditions

Essential conditions for invoking S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 in a case are; (i) the power under S. 12 can be exercised by Chairman NAB (delegatee) or the Court trying an accused for any offence as specified under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999; (ii) there must be reasonable grounds for believing that accused has committed an offence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999; (iii) the reasons for such belief of his must be provided in the order; and (iv) property/assets so frozen by the order under S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 must have some nexus with alleged crime of accused being investigated.

2025 PCrLJ 211 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.12 (a)Freezing of propertyWords "reasonable grounds"Scope

NAB authorities or Accountability Court are permitted under S.12 (a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to pass order of freezing of any property or part thereof in possession of accused or in possession of any relative or associated person

This is itself dependent upon availability of reasonable grounds.

2022 PLD 1 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 12Freezing of propertyPowers, exercise ofTerm 'reasonable grounds for believing'Applicability

Such power is discretionary in nature and it can either be exercised by Chairman or Court trying any offence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Power of Court has nexus with trial against accused while Chairman of the Bureau is empowered to order freezing of a property at any time

Legislature has circumscribed the power by prescribing certain mandatory statutory safeguards

Required standard prescribed for justifying interference with right to property for Chairman or Court, as the case may be, to satisfy test of having 'reasonable grounds for believing' that accused has committed an offence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

'Reasonable grounds for believing' has reference to required evidentiary threshold

Such is legal standard and it has to be met as a precondition before exercising intrusive power under S.12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

'Reasonable grounds' is must which manifests existence of certain essential facts, it essentially refers to existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable prudent person to form a belief

Such belief would be relatable to the property being, directly or indirectly, owned and controlled by accused and the latter having committed one of the offences described under S.9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Requisite standard is higher than a reasonable suspicion but less than 'on balance of probabilities', which is distinct from conjecture, speculation or suspicion

Required standard is far less than proving something beyond a reasonable doubt

Threshold required for reasonable person to conclude and be satisfied on the basis of sufficient material to conclude deprivation of or interference with right to own, hold or control property.

2021 PLD 411 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 13General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-AFreezing of propertyAppointment of receiver under S.12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (the Ordinance)Exercise of power to appoint "receiver" by Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) or Accountability CourtSatisfaction of grounds of reasonableness, rule of balance and judicious exercise of discretion while making such orderScope

Appellant / accused impugned order of Accountability Court whereby order for freezing of his property and appointment of receiver made by Director General (DG) NAB, was confirmed

Validity

Object of freezing was to keep assets available to satisfy any final order of confiscation if one was made and term "freezing" was quite expansively defined in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and included holding, controlling and managing any property through a receiver or otherwise

Appointment of receiver was an extremely harsh step, and Legislature could not have intended that Chairman NAB and Accountability Court should invoke S. 12(c)(ii) of the Ordinance in routine, said section should be invoked judiciously and by balancing competing interests of society and accused in every case

Section 12(c)(ii) of the Ordinance, was therefore was a permissive or enabling provision rather than a mandatory one, and S.12(b) of the Ordinance did not make appointment of receiver compulsory where property ordered to be frozen was a debt or other movable property and since S.12(e) used words "receiver, if any, appointed under the section" while describing powers, duties and liabilities of a receiver

For appointment of receiver, the State must satisfy the "rule of balance"

Director General NAB, in the present case, passed receivership order mechanically without giving reasons as to why same was required and whether means employed were proportional to aim sought to be realized and same was a violation of S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and also violative of law of discretion

Director General NAB therefore had no reasonable cause to appoint receiver in present case, and thus impugned order till extent of appointment of receiver was set aside

Appeal was partly allowed, accordingly.

2020 PCrLJ 421 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 33-ERecovery of fineFreezing of propertyScope

Mechanism prescribing an unambiguous procedure to freeze property of an offender during trial has to be followed as well in event of Accountability Court ordering forfeiture of assets of an offender through a final judgment.

2018 PLD 207 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12(a), first proviso & 13AppealTerm 'anytime' occurring in S.12, National Accountability Ordinance, 1999Objection petitionConditional orderFreezing of propertyFurnishing of Bank guarantees

Appellants were owners of property which was frozen by Accountability Court against which they had filed objection petition

Accountability Court allowed objection petition subject to furnishing of Bank guarantees equal to the amount of loss allegedly caused by appellants

Validity

Provisions contained in S.12(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 authorized not only Chairman National Accountability Bureau but also the court to freeze the property at any time

Such power of court was also made conditional to exercise the same only when trying the accused under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Word 'any time' used for exercise of power either by Chairman or the Court in regards to freezing of property was subject to or to be read as at any time during investigation by Chairman National Accountability Bureau or at any time by court during course of trial

Word 'any time' did not empower court to freeze property before commencement of trial and likewise once an accused was sent for trial, then Chairman National Accountability Bureau became functus officio which was also well clarified by first proviso of S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

High Court set aside freezing order passed by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau and also judgment rendered by Accountability Court and directed that keeping in view provision of S. 12(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and if deemed appropriate by the authorities, they may re-freeze property of appellants if reasonable grounds existed for exercise of power under S.12(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2018 PCrLJN 209 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 32AppealMaintainabilityFreezing of propertyObjections through attorneyLocus standi

Appellant was owner of the property which was frozen by Accountability Court during investigation against some other person

Objections against freezing order were assailed by appellant through his attorney but the same were dismissed

Validity

Appeal was filed by an un-authorized person who was holding special power of attorney in respect of looking after property of appellant

Person who filed appeal on behalf of appellant was not maintainable but objection petition was to be decided on merit

High Court set aside the order and granted opportunity to the appellant to appear in person before the Accountability Court

Accountability Court was directed by the High Court to decide objections petition afresh after hearing the appellant through his duly nominated counsel

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLD 696 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12, 13 & 23Freezing of propertyChairman of National Accountability Bureau, jurisdiction ofConfirmation of orderScope

Petitioners who were owners of properties which were frozen under S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 assailed freezing order passed by Chairman on the grounds that same was not confirmed by Trial Court within 15 days

Validity

Chairman National Accountability Bureau's freezing order seized to have effect on 15th day after application was filed unless it was confirmed by Accountability Court

Order of Chairman National Accountability Bureau was not confirmed by Accountability Court for one year

Word 'shall' in proviso to S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 made it mandatory rather than directory, therefore, said 15 days period needed to be strictly followed

High Court set aside freezing order passed by Accountability Court and properties which were subject-matter of order stood de-frozen, however, provisions of S. 23 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 would continue to apply to those properties

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLD 696 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 17Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 493Freezing of propertyComplainant, role ofScope

Complainant in a National Accountability Bureau case may be able to assist the prosecutors of Bureau if so allowed by Accountability Court or High Court

Such assistance does not extend to filing applications by complainant in his own name

Accountability Court has no power to either entertain or adjudicate upon such application under S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 filed by complainant.

2015 YLR 2235 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 13Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 13 & 199Constitutional petitionFreezing of propertyDouble jeopardy

Petitioner was accused before National Accountability Bureau who entered into voluntary return and deposited Rs.2.1846 million

Subsequent to issuance of "No Objection Certificate" by NAB as well as Quetta Development Authority and after execution of registered sale deed with petitioner, National Accountability Bureau issued freezing order with regard to same property

Plea raised by authorities was that remedy with petitioner was filing of appeal and not Constitutional petition

Validity

Such freezing order against same property amounted to double jeopardy which was prohibited under Art. 13 of the Constitution

Remedy of filing appeal within ten days was provided under S. 13(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to an aggrieved person whose claim or objection against freezing of property had been dismissed by Accountability Court

No appeal was provided under S. 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, against an order passed under S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

No objections were filed by petitioner against freezing of his property and order was passed by Accountability Court under S.12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, against which no appeal was provided under S. 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Petitioner was an aggrieved person having no remedy of appeal provided against order in question, therefore, he rightly invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Powers of superior Courts under Art. 199 of the Constitution remained available to petitioner to their full extent notwithstanding anything contained in any legislative instrument

High Court set aside freezing order passed by National Accountability Bureau and approval by Accountability Court, as the same were null, void and of no legal effect

High Court de-freezed the property owned by petitioner

Petition was allowed in circum-stances.

2015 PLD 61 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5(a) & 12Freezing of propertyPrivate personAbscondanceAppellant was aggrieved of order passed by Accountability Court freezing his propertyValidity

Order of Chairman NAB was subject to confirmation of court before which reference lay, while order passed by Trial Court did not require any confirmation-Accused allegedly received more than a sum of Rs.90 million, which was transferred from the account of company in question to his account

Accused as per definition given in S.5(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, included a person in respect of whom there were reasonable ground to believe that he was or had been involved in commission of any offence triable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or was subject of investigation or inquiry by NAB

Appellant was facing inquiry at the relevant time and thereafter wilfully absconded

Freezing order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 757 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12Freezing of propertyScope

Order passed by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau with regard to freezing of property could not remain in field for an indefinite period.

2013 PCrLJ 1797 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.5(da), 12, 13 & 32Freezing of propertyBenamidarProofHouse in question was frozen by Trial Court considering the same to be property of accused

Appellant filed objection on the plea that he was the real owner on the basis of unregistered sale-deed and accused had nothing to do with it

Objection was dismissed by Trial Court and property was not de-frozen

Validity

Authorities failed to prove that transaction of property in question was Benami one and also failed to prove that after release of accused, house owned by appellant could not be frozen/attached under S.12(f) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, in connection with alleged corrupt practices of accused

Allegation of prosecution was that previous owner executed general power of attorney in which it was mentioned that he had received sale-consideration

General attorney sold the house in favour of another person through registered sale deed from whom appellant purchased the same through cheques which were produced before Trial Court

Real owner was the person in whose favour there was registered sale-deed and he could only challenge ownership of appellant from whom he had derived the title

Appellant had successfully proved that house in question had been purchased from his independent source i.e. payment through four cheques by producing original document, being in possession of suit house, having no motive to purchase on behalf of accused

Prosecution failed to bring on record any proof through which it could be proved that suit house had been purchased through money procured from accused which he arranged through alleged corrupt practices

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and released the house in question

Appeal was allowed accordingly.