Saturday, November 21, 2009

Case Law, Bail Anti Corruption

BAIL GRANTED IN ANTI CORRUPTION MATTER

Citation Name : 2008 PLD 381 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RIZWAN AHMAD
Side Opponent : NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman
Preamble, Ss.9 & 18---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 25---Constitutional petition---Aims and objects of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Petitioner allegedly having demanded Rs.50,000 from complainant for restoration of electricity connection earlier disconnected by him, a raid was conducted on petitioner---Petitioner who allegedly was arrested red-handed with tainted amount, remained on physical remand and thereafter was sent to judicial lock-up by Administrative Judge of Accountability Court---Petitioner had submitted that NAB Authorities were not competent to get the raid conducted in the matter, which fell exclusively within the domain of anti -corruption Authorities and submitted that the aims and objects of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 were to root out corruption in the public departments of high magnitude---Validity---Main purpose of the promulgation of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was to check large scale rampant corruption in the public offices in particular and in the country in general---NAB Authorities, in circumstances took cognizance of cases of high magnitude corruption and other laws on the subject of checking of corruption from the Public Offices, such as anti -corruption Laws and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, were not repealed and remained as live statutes and the special courts under said statutes were very much functional along with the investigation staff etc.---Chairman NAB or any of his delegatees had no jurisdiction to pick and choose for filing reference against anybody under the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 as discretion with NAB Authorities was not absolute or arbitrary---Discrimination in treatment to the citizens by public authorities could not be allowed to sustain in opposition to law on the subject as constitutional protection through Art.25 of Constitution of equality of all citizens before law had been guaranteed---Action by NAB Authorities, prima facie, was not warranted in the case under the law as other laws on the subject could cater the need in the shape of action against the petitioner on the application of the aggrieved person---High Court accepted the constitutional petition of the accused and granted him bail in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2008 YLR 908 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : WAJID SHAMSUL HASSAN
Side Opponent : State
S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , cancellation of--Special Judge had sought direction for taking action against accused who, after grant of bail to him, had jumped the concession of bail and had gone abroad and was not attending the court---If bail was granted by superior Court then the Trial Court could not cancel the same on merits and the Trial Court had to make reference to the court which had granted the bail for appropriate action according to law, but in cases where accused, after grant of bail from superior court, failed to attend the Trial Court or jumped the bail , the Trial Court was competent to cancel the bail for his non-attendance and issue non-bail able warrants in order to arrest him---Trial Court was also competent to issue notice to surety under S.514 Cr.P.C. for procuring the attendance of accused---In the present case Special Judge had informed that accused had furnished surety with the Nazir of the High Court---Nazir of the court was directed to immediately send the details and particulars of surety to he Special Judge who would issue notice under S.514 Cr.P.C. to the surety and would issue non-bail able warrant of the absconding accused---Earlier order granti ng bail to accused was recalled/cancelled on the ground of abscondance of accused.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 345 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : UMER HAYAT
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R.---Inquiries against accused dropped by anti -corruption Establishment---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he allegedly received certain amount as bribe from complainant on pretext of procuring his appointment as Lamberdar through concerned officers---Accused contended that two inquiries held against accused by anti -corruption Establishment were dropped as allegations of complainant were found baseless; that complaint against petitioner was filed after delay of one year for which no plausible reason was given and that provisions of S.161, P.P.C. were not applicable to the case of petitioner---Validity---Admittedly, there was an unexplained delay of one year in lodging of complaint---Accused had been exonerated in two inquiries held by anti -corruption Establishment and necessity for initiating third inquiry had not been explained---Alleged transaction between the parties did not relate to official duties of accused in his capacity as public servant and registration of case against accused appeared to be immature---Complainant himself appeared to be involved in a number of criminal cases, hence not much credibility could be attached to complaint or his statement made before Investigating Officer---Provisions of S.161, P.P.C. were not applicable to the case of petitioner---Accused, who was a constable, could not by any stretch of imagination procure appointment of complainant as Lamberdar---Present case was not that of raid conducted by Magistrate but a transaction which took place between the parties---Offences mentioned in F.I.R. were not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., hence grant of bail was a rule---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed.



Citation Name : 2004 MLD 1201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZIA-UL-GHANI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN
----Ss.154, 156 & 403---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/467/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 13 & 199---Constitutional petition---Principle of double jeopardy---Second F.I.R. registered in presence of earlier F.I.R.---Earlier F.I.R. was lodged by complainant against accused person under Ss.4191420/467/468/471, P.P.C. and investigation in that case was being conducted by Range Crime Branch and bail before arrest was granted to accused--During pendency of investigation in said case, complainant had moved another application on which anti -corruption Department had initiated inquiry under anti -corruption Establishment Rules, 1985---Said later inquiry had been challenged by accused through Constitutional petition--


Citation Name : 2004 PLD 287 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL QADIR SAHAR---Petitioner
Side Opponent : THE STATE---Respondent
----S. 497---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.31-A---bail , grant of---Accused earlier was granted bail by Special Judge, anti -corruption and his case was transferred to Accountability Court where he continued appearing on some dates, whereafter he discontinued to appear--Surety amount of accused was forfeited and he was declared proclaimed offender and was convicted under S.31-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and was sentenced---On filing appeal against his conviction and sentence, order convicting accused was suspended by the High Court directing accused to surrender before National Accountability Court and accused surrendered himself accordingly and he was remanded to judicial custody of said Court--


Citation Name : 2004 PCRLJ 285 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL QADIR
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Ss. 420/468/471/477-A---Prearrest bail ---Prosecution story was clouded under doubt---F.I.R. was not registered by the anti -corruption Department, but a regular F.I.R. was registered under the directions of D.P.O.---State Counsel had conceded to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused---Accused was to be humiliated, disgraced and subjected to torture by the police if he was arrested in the case---Pre-arrest bail was granted to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2004 PLD 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Syed JAMALUDDIN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/409/506-B & 21--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.2---Pre-arrest bail --Maintainability and venue for filing application---Accused was a Controller of Examinations of the University of Karachi which; though a Corporation, was not set up and controlled by the Central Government, but rather was set up by the Provincial Government of Sindh---Employee of the University of Karachi, therefore, would not be covered by the later part of the definition of Public Servant as contained in S.2 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947---Whatever functions were exercised by the accused were on behalf of the University and all property with which he might have dealt with was of the University and not of the Government---Accused, thus; was riot a public servant within the meaning of clause nine of S.21, P.P.C.---Order passed by the Special Judge, anti -corruption rejecting the bail application of the accused on the ground of having no jurisdiction in the matter was maintained being in accordance with law---Accused was directed to approach the appropriate Court for grant of further relief in accordance with law---Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was extended for a further period of fifteen days in order to enable him to approach the appropriate Court---bail application was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 2395 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947) S.5---bail , grant of---Allegations against the accused were that he and his co­ accused while they were posted at P.R. Centre had misappropriated 69.360 M. Tons of wheat belonging to the Food Department-- F. I. R. had been lodged after a delay of about one year---Accused had moved application to Director anti -corruption wherein he had mentioned that he was neither joined in the investigation nor was heard before sanction of judicial action against him and so injustice had been caused to him---Director anti ­ corruption , on the said application, had ordered to reopen the matter despite the accord of sanction for judicial action against the accused---In view of all the facts particularly the registration of two separate F.I.Rs. at the instance of the accused against the co-accused and the members of the supervising team constituted by the Department to supervise despatches of wheat stocks lying in open at the said P.R. Centre alleging misappropriation of wheat stocks against them and re-opening of the matter on accused's request by the Director anti ­ corruption , case against the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt--­ Accused was granted bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2002 YLR 3831 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Ch. NAZIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380/409/109---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Accused had deposited alleged misappropriated amount with Department--No allegation was levelled against accused for their non joining the investigation and it was not necessary that accused should be handcuffed for effecting recovery of alleged bogus licences---Case against accused having been registered with local police, ordinarily it should have been investigated by anti -corruption Establishment as accused were civil servants---Law Officer was asked to direct Investigating Officer to send file to anti -corruption Establishment for inquiry/investigation---Ad interim bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2002 YLR 2764 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : UMAR DIN LODHI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/468/471-A/34 --- Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---Offences pertained to the years 1992 to 1996 and the accused was posted as ADM in the year 1995, hence the whole of the period shown in the F.I.R. could not be put to his account---Act of the accused relating to his period of posting was found in the two departmental inquiries conducted against him to be an irregularity in drawing the Government funds in excess to the sanctioned amount and not an embezzlement of the same---Investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted in the Court--Accused who was a retired Government servant was no more required for any further investigation---Involvement of huge amount in the case could not be made a ground for refusing the bail ---Two co-accused had already been granted bail ---Accused had pleaded mala fides on the part of the anti corruption Police at the behest of the complainant due to his personal ill-will--Record and all documents being in the possession of the prosecution, there was no chance of tampering with the evidence--Accused had not misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail granted to him more than one and a half years back and the same was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : WASI HAIDER
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(2)'---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 & 34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Amount involved in case though was substanti al but that fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail to accused especially when that huge amount was encashed during tenure of other officer---Case of accused was identical with case of co-accused who had been released on bail ---Rule of consistency demand that bail concession was also granted to accused as bail could not be withheld as a punishment to accused---Investigation had already been completed and accused were no, more required for investigation and it was a rule in matter of grant of bail in such cases to grant the bail and to refuse was an exception---Case being fit for further inquiry, accused were admitted to bail .


Citation Name : 2001 MLD 1680 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : YOUSAF IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATEA
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S,5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161---bail , grant of---Accused being an employee of WAPDA, anti -corruption Establishment had no jurisdiction to register and investigate the case---Record of the case had been sent to Federal Investigating Agency for its investigation as per observations of the High Court---Complainant from whom amount was allegedly received by the accused as illegal gratification had exonerated the accused from the allegation---Was not clear as to when the investigation in case would be completed by the Authority and what would be the result of that investigation---bail was granted to the accused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2000 PCRLJ 871 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SABIR LODHI
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),5.420/468/471/409/109--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Punjab anti -corruption Rules, 1985, Rr.5, 6, 7 & 8---Pre-arrest bail ---Enmity between the parties due to election rivalry was established---High Court, in view of the physical infirmity of lady accused, had directed the Investigating Officer to record her statement at her residence, but even such first step towards the investigation had not been taken so far by the Investigating Officer---Relevant papers in the defence of allegations levelled against them sent by accused through courier service vide receipt to the Investigating Officer were not received by him and were returned---Prosecution, thus, was not interested in bringing on record the point of view of the accused and wanted to proceed further with the case only on the basis of allegations levelled in the F.I.R.---Case had been registered against the accused in a hurriedly manner by the anti -corruption Establishment without holding any preliminary inquiry in violation of Rr. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the Punjab anti -corruption Rules, 1985 which had proved its mala fides---Stubborn manner in which the anti -corruption Establishment had refused to associate the accused in the inquiry/investigation even after the registration of the case had also revealed that the said Establishment was not interested in a genuine inquiry and investigation, but was merely urging for the arrest of accused for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjust harassment which could be validly considered for grant of pre-arrest bail ---Lady accused was physically infirm person suffering from paralysis and on this ground alone she was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail ---Co-accused who was a retired Professor from Government College and did not appear to have any connection with the crime seemed to have been involved merely because he was the husband of the lady accused---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1999 PLD 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HANIF PATHAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Pakistan Penal Code S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Passports Act lXX of 1974), S.6(1)(a)(c)---Quashing of proceedings---Name of accused was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor in interim challan or supplementary interim challan and he was also not assigned any part therein---Accused was a respectable person and was serving as General Manager (Store) in P.I.A., but police starter[ visiting his house in order to arrest him malafidely---Apprehending his imminent arrest and humiliation at hands of police, accused applied for bail before arrest which was granted and. finally was confirmed by Trial Court---After confirmation of bail accused was not required in case in any capacity, but -lie was directed to attend Trial Court for no reason and accused in obedience to directions of Court had been appearing before Court---When accused was granted bail he did not need to be directed to attend Court till conclusion of investigation and final report, but could be directed to join investigation---Order of Trial Court directing accused to attend Court was not warranted by law and was liable to be quashed--Object of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. whereby inherent powers were conferred on High Court, was to do real and substanti al justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court---To secure ends of justice, powers of High Court were very wide---For invoking jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. it was not. a condition precedent that Trial Court must be moved in each and every case in first instance---In absence of any evidence against accused no useful purpose would be served by dragging accused in case before Trial Court and accused was bound to be let off.

Citation Name : 1999 PLD 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HANIF PATHAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Prevention of corruption Act 1947 S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Passports Act lXX of 1974), S.6(1)(a)(c)---Quashing of proceedings---Name of accused was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor in interim challan or supplementary interim challan and he was also not assigned any part therein---Accused was a respectable person and was serving as General Manager (Store) in P.I.A., but police starter[ visiting his house in order to arrest him malafidely---Apprehending his imminent arrest and humiliation at hands of police, accused applied for bail before arrest which was granted and. finally was confirmed by Trial Court---After confirmation of bail accused was not required in case in any capacity, but -lie was directed to attend Trial Court for no reason and accused in obedience to directions of Court had been appearing before Court---When accused was granted bail he did not need to be directed to attend Court till conclusion of investigation and final report, but could be directed to join investigation---Order of Trial Court directing accused to attend Court was not warranted by law and was liable to be quashed--Object of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. whereby inherent powers were conferred on High Court, was to do real and substanti al justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court---To secure ends of justice, powers of High Court were very wide---For invoking jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. it was not. a condition precedent that Trial Court must be moved in each and every case in first instance---In absence of any evidence against accused no useful purpose would be served by dragging accused in case before Trial Court and accused was bound to be let off.


Citation Name : 1997 PCRLJ 1814 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BRIG. (RETD.) ASLAM HAYAT QURESH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV off' 1860), S.409/420/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Co-accused having only been granted an ad interim anti cipatory bail which was yet to be confirmed, rule of consistency was not attracted to the case of accused who had sought post-arrest bail which was governed by different principles---Tentative assessment of the evidence available with the prosecution showed that the accused as a State functionary had given ultimate approval by ignoring illegalities committed by the other functionaries, which had caused colossal pecuniary loss to the national exchequer and unlawful pecuniary gain to the absconding accused---Accused, prima facie, was guilty of corruption which was the worst menace prevailing in the society these days---bail was .declined to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1997 MLD 1737 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ABBOTTABAD
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/477-A/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---F.I.R. was not only silent about the specific date or month when the offence was committed by the accused, but was also devoid of many other material details which could show their involvement in the alleged misappropriation or any information which could lead the Court to reach any such conclusion---Despite the direction given to the Investigating Officer to provide some necessary details within 15 days about the distribution and embezzlement of amounts etc. by the accused, the same were not provided by the prosecution, although the case had to be adjourned for this purpose many a times---Such conduct of the prosecution gave rise to two presumptions that either the anti -corruption Department had nothing in its possession against the accused and the F.I.R. had been lodged only to harass them or the concerned Department of anti -corruption , if it had anything against the accused, had come in collusion with them not to expose them in respect of their corruption and every such presumption did lead to a certainty that the conduct of the concerned Investigating Officer was the best symbol of corruption in the anti -corruption Department---Since guilt or innocence of the accused could not be found in the absence of record interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed.


Citation Name : 1996 SCMR 475 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FAUJI FOUNDATION
Side Opponent : BAKHTIAR AHMED SYED
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/109/419/409/ 201/ 467---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Cancellation of bail ---Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that neither Sessions Judge nor Special Judge (Central) anti -corruption had jurisdiction in the case as offences alleged against the accused being scheduled offences were triable exclusively by a Special Court constituted under Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, which had already refused pre-arrest bail to the accused.


Citation Name : 1989 PCRLJ 2035 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : GHULAM SADIQ
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) -.--S. 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail before arrest--WAPDA employee-Occurrence took place in D.I. Khan--Special Judge, anti -corruption (Central), at Peshawar, having not been debarred either to grant or refuse anti cipatory bail in the cases falling under his jurisdiction, bail could be granted by him.

Citation Name : 1986 PCRLJ 1446 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MALIK SULTAN AHMAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---Ss. 514 & 497--Forfeiture of surety bond--bail granted by Deputy Commissioner who had no jurisdiction in the matter--Case ultimately transferred to Special Judge anti -corruption having jurisdiction in the matter who passed order of forfeiture of surety bond in respect of bail granted by Deputy Commissioner--Held, since order passed by Deputy Commissioner releasing accused on b was without jurisdiction 'and ab initio void, surety bond executed in pursuance thereof was also invalid, surety, . .therefore, stood released--Order of Special Judge, anti corruption forfeiting surety bond set aside.

Citation Name : 1983 PCRLJ 141 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD ZAFAR
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) --S. 497/498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/468/470 read with Prevention of corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5 (2)-bail Amount involved Rs. 24 lacs out of which nine lacs recovered from petitioner and remaining yet to be recovered-Petitioner in Jail for more than a year-Challan of eleven cases submitted in Court and remaining pending investigation - for want of recovery-Substanti al amount having been recovered and trial likely to take considerable time, bail granted .

Citation Name : 2007 PLC 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKRAM BHATTI
Side Opponent : DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN SPORTS BOARD ISLAMABAD
----Ss. 49(4)(e) & 63---Awarding of major punishment of demotion---Unfair labour practice by the employers---Petition against---Petitioner, who was General Secretary of employees union, was demoted from the post of Assistant Accountant in BS-14 to steno Typist in BS-12, issuing him show-cause notice, but without holding any enquiry against him--Order of demotion did not even indicate the period for which it would remain operative---Petitioner had challenged order of his demotion alleging that he had been punished squarely for his trade union activities---Employers had further advertised the post of Assistant Accountant, which was held by petitioner before his demotion, to be filled through direct recruitment---Notice was issued to employers for filing written statement to petition filed by petitioner against them---Management was directed not to fill vacancy earlier held by petitioner till the final disposal of main petition filed by petitioner---To the objection raised by employers with regard to jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission to hear present petition, it was held by the Bench of Commission that Commission had jurisdiction to hear the petition---Objection of employers regarding limitation was also repelled---Validity---Law and justice demanded that an independent inquiry must be held to probe into the charges, levelled against an employee, but no inquiry was held against petitioner---Employers also failed to produce any witness in defence despite number of adjournments were sought for this purpose---Hostility of Management against petitioner was evident from pleadings---Case of petitioner on all fours fell under S.49(4)(e), read with S.63(1)(c) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---National Industrial Relations Commission, without dilating on technicalities and frivolous objections raised by both counsel, held that demotion of petitioner was due to malice developed by employers against petitioner for his involvement in trade union affairs---Impugned order based on mala fides, was thus set aside.

GENERAL CASES LAWS ON ANTI CORRUPTION MATTER

Citation Name : 2009 YLR 618 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHID MEHMOOD
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION, MULTAN
Ss. 420/467/468/471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Revenue officials and the beneficiary of bogus document had got registered two cases, one with the local police and the other with anti corruption Establishment apprehending their own prosecution on the charge of fraud, forgery and corruption ---Record did not show as to why and for what consideration concerned Police Station and anti corruption Establishment had accommodated the principal accused persons and registered two F.I.Rs. at their instance for the offences allegedly committed by them­selves---District Coordination Officer had rightly taken cognizance of the matter and got registered the case against all the culprits who had played havoc with the revenue administration---No question of quashing the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the District Coordination Officer would, therefore, arise---Accused and the beneficiary of fraud had won the favour of police and anti corruption Department and for this reason alone they could not be rewarded with the relief prayed for---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2009 YLR 294 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Malik MUHAMMAD JAMEEL AKHTAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
Art. 199---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra Court appeal---Constitutional petition, maintainability of---Appellant/petitioner had claimed that respondents had furnished forged and false documents in respect of L.L.B. degree and that the matter had been accepted by the anti -corruption Committee of the provincial Bar Council---Appellant did not deny that in the subsequent decision of the anti -corruption Committee of Provincial Bar Council, said documents were duly considered---Review of the Committee was based upon the subsequent verification of the University, which having not been challenged before any court of law, had attained finality---Finding of anti -corruption Committee being clear, unequivocal and based upon the evidence, with regard to genuineness of result card of the respondents, there was no reason for the High Court to agree with the appellant, who even otherwise had no locus standi to file constitutional petition against respondent being not an aggrieved person---Order of anti -corruption Committee of Provincial Bar Council, being self-speaking, High Court declined to intervene in constitutional petition, which had rightly been rejected---Even otherwise, constitutional petition was not to be entertained against the respondents having been filed by a person who was not an `aggrieved party'.


Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AMAN ULLAH RANJHA
Side Opponent : SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION, SARGODHA
Ss. 202 & 5(2)---Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), Ss.5 & 6---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.410, 420, 468, 471 & 161---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Special Judge anti -corruption after recording the statement of the complainant in the private complaint entrusted investigation/inquiry to Deputy Director Investigation anti -corruption Establishment, which was later on entrusted to D.S.P. (Legal) vide impugned order---Contention was that Special Judge could not entrust inquiry/investigation of the complaint to D.S.P. (Legal), as the provisions of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, being a special law had precedence over Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which was a general law and S.5(6) of the said Act was referred to in support thereof---Section 202, Cr.P.C. started with phrase "any Court" instead of mentioning a Magistrate, Sessions Judge, Special Judge, etc. and the phrase "Any Court" had included "Special Judge"----Section 202, Cr.P.C. was therefore, applicable in the case---Provisions of S.202, Cr.P.C. were not inconsistent with the provisions of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958---Procedure contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was applicable to the proceedings in the cases before Special Judge (Central) in view of Ss.5 & 6 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958---Impugned order had been rightly passed under S.202, Cr.P.C. by the Special Judge, anti -corruption , and the same did not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity-Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2009 MLD 337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LIAQUAT ALI
Side Opponent : DIRECTOR GENERAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT PUNJAB, LAHORE
R. 19---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/467/468/471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Re-investigation--Under R.19 of Punjab anti -corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, the Governor, the Chief Secretary and Director could suo motu or otherwise, cats for the record of any case pending investigation with the Establishment; and give such direction as might be necessary for the speedy,. fair and just disposal of the same---In the present case, the Governor had not passed any order or direction---Chief Secretary also neither summoned nor examined the record---Additional Chief Secretary also did not call for the record and simply sought a report from the Investigating Agency---Director General, anti -corruption Establishment, vide impugned order opened the chapter of investigation, which had already been closed by him with a direction to the Investigator to submit challan in the court---No factual and legal justification existed for the Director General, anti -corruption Establishment to sit in appeal against his own order and action---Two orders by the Director were in field; at one time he endorsed and approved the investigation against accused persons after having examined the record, but on reconsideration he chose to review and changed his earlier order---No rule or provision of law existed which could empower or authorize the Director to sit in appeal against his own order---Order of re-investigation passed by the Director General being not in line with the earlier one whereunder judicial action had been proved, was not sustainable in the eyes of law---Impugned order, was declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

Citation Name : 2009 MLD 25 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RASHID MIRZA
Side Opponent : REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Ss. 420/4671468/471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Respondent complainant had sold his owned property to petitioner accused through a mutation of sale entered by the Revenue Patwari in the daily diary and the Register of Mutations---Two co-owners of the complainant had identified him before the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of the mutation---Revenue Officer by way of abundant caution had also got affixed on the mutation a photograph of the complainant vendor duly attested by a Naib Nazim, Union Council---Petitioner, accused vendee, had paid consideration of Rs.3,00,000 to the complainant vendor against a proper receipt bearing his signature and thumb impressions---Complainant had neither filed an appeal before the District Collector against the order is question of the Revenue Officer, nor challenged the validity and legality of the said mutation before the Civil Court by way of a suit for declaration---Controversial points fell within the exclusive domain of Civil Court, whereas the case was being investigated by the anti -corruption Establishment---No offence whatsoever was made out against the petitioner---anti -corruption Establishment was not the competent forum for resolution of such like disputes and it could not be allowed to assume the role of a Civil Court or District Collector---By allowing the criminal investigating agency to investigate the case would amount to abuse of process of law---Case therefore warranted the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers---F.I.R. registered against the accused petitioner was quashed accordingly.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment