Conditional order

2024 CLC 610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118Suit for recovery of money on the basis of negotiable instrumentLeave to defend the suitConditional orderNon-complianceTampering of chequesProofAppellant/defendant was granted leave to defend the suit subject to furnishing solvent suretyAppellant/defendant failed to furnish the surety, resultantly the suit was decreed against himContention of appellant/defendant was that the cheques were tamperedValidityThere was no documentary evidence to corroborate such position

Appellant/defendant sought cancellation of underlying agreement which was the basis of his suit for cancellation but such plea did not lie in summary suit

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as the same was well-reasoned and proof of dishonored cheques was annexed with plaint

Trial Court rightly observed that presumption regarding cheques in question under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was to be admitted

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

2017 PLD 143 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(b) & 16(a)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionBail, refusal ofDelay in conclusion of trialConditional order

Petitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau and remained in custody for almost 18 months without conclusion of trial

Validity

Person arrested was justified in having a legitimate expectation that he would not be deprived of his right to freedom and liberty for an unreasonable period particularly if the Court had taken cognizance

Legitimate expectation stemmed from express language and scheme of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

When such legitimate expectation was frustrated it would give the affected person a valid ground to seek judicial review despite ouster of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Unreasonable delay in conclusion of proceedings was tantamount to defeating object and purposes of National Accountability Ordinance,1999 particularly when it could not be attributed to the person deprived of liberty

During trial, 108 witnesses had been examined while more than 50 were yet to enter witness box

No time frame could be given for expected conclusion of trial

Petitioner could not be kept behind bars for an indefinite period particularly when National Accountability Ordinance,1999 expressly provided that proceedings would be held day-to-day and were to be concluded within 30 days

High Court observed that Trial Court would complete trial within 30 days holding hearings on day-to-day basis without granting an adjournment

In case trial was not concluded within stipulated period, i.e., 30 days, petitioner would be released on bail by Trial Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2015 CLC 366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Time limit, absence ofFulfilment of conditionPrinciple

When Court / authority passes conditional order but does not mention about time for fulfilment of such condition or penal consequences for non-fulfilment of that condition, person in whose favour order is passed cannot be penalized for belated fulfilment of such condition.