Benamidar

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

S.5 (da)BenamidarConnotation

One can be said to be Benamidar only when he ostensibly holds or is in possession or has custody of some property which actually belongs to accused of an offence punishable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 or if it is meant for the benefit and enjoyment of accused.

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

Ss. 5(da) & 9(b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Pre-arrest bail, grant ofBenamidarProofRole of accusedDetermination

Petitioner was a house wife and contended that her husband who was principal accused, had purchased properties in her name

Validity

Such was to be determined after recording of evidence whether accused was Benamidar or actual owner of properties

Case of petitioner was one of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.

2022 PLD 371 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 51 & 56National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss. 9 & 5(da)Corruption and corrupt practicesBenamidarPenalty for benami transactionBenami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 to override other lawsScope

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.

2022 PLD 371 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9 & 5(da)Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (V of 2017), S. 2(8)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Corruption and corrupt practicesBenamidarBenami transactionPre-arrest bail, grant ofAccused sought pre-arrest bail in proceedings pending before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

Allegation against accused was that he was an associate of the main accused on whose behalf he was acting as Director of a company; that shares of the company were transferred in the name of accused in order to obtain a fraudulent finance facility from a bank; that the company misappropriated the amount of finance facility and the accused possessed the crime proceeds and subsequently transferred such proceeds in various other accounts

Held that nothing was placed by the NAB on record to establish that the consideration for acquisition of shares of the company had not been paid by the accused or that such consideration had been paid by another person, bringing transactions in the shares of the company within the definition of 'benami transaction' under S. 2(8) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017

National Accountability Bureau had not even bothered to collect share-transfer deeds recording the trial of sale of shares from previous members of the company to present members, in order to determine whether or not such transactions were made subject to payment of consideration

Record did not reflect that the accused was a 'benamidar' within the meaning of S. 5(da) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

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

2019 YLR 788 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(a) & 9(b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional PetitionPre-arrest bail, refusal ofCase of further inquiryBenamidarMoney launderingPetitioner was accused of money laundering for principal accused and sought confirmation of pre-arrest bailValidityPrincipal accused in connivance with petitioner amassed assets in Pakistan and abroad illegally

Petitioner was receiving cash from principal accused and placed same into his Bank accounts and subsequently layered same into other accounts

Principal accused at relevant time when he was Minister of Petroleum visited Karachi, met petitioner and handed over him cash, received through gratification/ illicit money for disguising

Petitioner used to deposit same into his own accounts then withdrew same intermittently for purchasing properties in Pakistan or abroad

Petitioner used to make payment through pay order or demand draft and then intimated principal accused through coded conversation after completion of transaction

Petitioner was front man and benamidar of principal accused

Details of bank accounts of petitioner and other material collected during investigation indicated abnormal transactions beyond his well-known source of income

Petitioner had not been able to make out a case for grant of relief including concession of bail

High Court rejected grant of bail to petitioner and recalled granting ad-interim pre-arrest bail

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PCrLJ 403 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5(da), 9(a)(iv) & (b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(2)Constitutional petitionBail, grant ofBenamidarAssets beyond meansVicarious liabilityProof

Petitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau for holding assets in his name which were purchased by his father who was principal accused in the reference

Validity

Principal accused accumulated numerous assets which he could not account for through his known sources of income who malafidely and fraudulently held some of the properties in name of petitioner and another person as Benamidars

Prima facie petitioner was not involved directly in all the transactions and his vicarious liability was to be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Case of petitioner required further inquiry in terms of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5(da), 9(a)(iv) & (b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Pre-arrest bail, refusal ofBenamidar

Petitioner was wife of that Branch Manager who was maintaining bank accounts through which pensions were paid to ghost pensioners against fake and fraudulent documents

Petitioner was alleged to have been used to hide ill-gotten money which her husband was receiving from beneficiaries whom he had favoured

Large amounts were noticed in her account which she had not been able to adequately explain

Petitioner failed to make out a case of mala fide on the part of NAB for including her in the reference

No prima facie, sufficient material was available to connect her with offence by aiding and abetting her husband and as an accomplice and beneficiary through being used as Benamidar

Pre-arrest bail was declined in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJN 138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5(da), 9(a)(iv) & (b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionPre-arrest bail, refusal ofBenamidarIllegal payments, camouflage of

Petitioners were accused facing investigation under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 on allegation of their being Benamidars of their father who was a government official

Validity

Petitioners could not explain as to how they generated vast amounts of money lying in their Bank accounts

Sources of funds for property and vehicles which they had acquired could not be explained

Such large unexplained amounts were either seed money for their potential business or business was setup to camouflage illegal payments

Petitioners were not charged with acquiring assets beyond their known sources of income under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 but they were charged as beneficiaries on account of misuse of authority by their father during time in which he held public office in connection with project in question

Petitioners should have been able to adequately account for funds in their own Bank accounts which any law abiding citizen should be able to do so

Courts simply could not turn a blind eye to such glaring anomalies

Sufficient material was available on record to show that reasonable grounds existed to connect petitioners to commission of offence as Benamidar

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

Pre-arrest bail was declined under circumstances.

2015 YLR 371 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 5(da)BenamidarScope

All holdings when used for the benefit or enjoyment of accused would be deemed to be a Benami property on behalf of accused, though that actually entered in any official record in the name of accused or remain in possession of any other person.

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.