Case Law, Bail anti corruption

Citation Name : 2007 MLD 536 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHER MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SHAFI
---S. 42---Suit for declaration and possession---Plaintiff alleged that mutation in question had been fraudulently procured by defendant and that no sale was effected in his favour---Suit was dismissed but allowed in appeal-Reason which had prevailed with Appellate Court was that Patwari concerned had been convicted in anti -corruption proceedings in respect of his conduct relating to another mutation---Defendant contended that conviction of Patwari in respect of some other mutations had no relevance with mutation in question---In an earlier suit filed by plaintiff seeking possession of disputed land Member Zila Council appeared as plaintiff's witness but his testimony proved the defence set up by defendant---Said witness though impleaded as defendant in present suit but was not declared hostile in previous suit-Son of plaintiff who was a witness to mutation and would have been the best witness in the case failed to appear in witness box and no explanation was available on record for such failure---Contentions were well founded and remained uncontroverted and Appellate Court had exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity---Appellate decree was, therefore, set aside.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3036 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AHMAD RIAZ SHEIKH
Side Opponent : State
---Ss.9(a)(v), 10, 18(g) 24---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Reference was filed by `Acting Chairman' N.A.B. against accused in Accountability Court on the plea that accused as holder of public office, had indulged in acts of corruption and corrupt practices and had acquired valuable assets i.e. gold ornaments; prize bonds; and Share certificates, immovable assets---anti -corruption Establishment investigated into the matter and Investigating Officer in his report had submitted. that accused had acquired movable and immovable properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income and that accused had acquired said assets through misuse of authority and had gained benefits and favour for himself and for his benamidars---Prosecution story revealed that late father of accused used to look after the farms and properties of Ex Director-General of the department---Accused joined said department in the year 1977 as Sub-Inspector, but in the course of Iris service he accumulated assets beyond his known sources of income through corruption .and corrupt practices---Prosecution in the course of trial produced video-cassettes to show the lavish style of living of accused and way he was spending money---Gold ornaments valuing Rs. one arore approximately were recovered from the house of accused during raid---Explanation given by accused in his. statement under S.342, Cr. P. C. was unsatisfactory---Heaps of evidence had been collected against accused---Accused, after joining the department, the assets and income of accused "sky rocketed" and it was not even imaginable that a person of such humble origin, would accumulate wealth to the extent that one would not be able to describe it---Expenditure on the foreign trips of family of accused and details of household expenditure within the country was amazing---Accused had himself admitted prize bonds .to .the extent of Rs. 2,55,000 in his statement under S.342, Cr. P.C.---Allegations embodied in details of assets and properties given in the charge-sheet stood fully established against accused---Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly convicted accused for the offence under Ss.9(a)(v) and 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Conviction of accused as recorded by the Trial Court, was upheld; however, as accused and his family members had suffered over a long period, of time on account of prolonged proceedings and the agony faced by them over the years; and also considering the ailment of accused, sentence of imprisonment for 5 years would serve ends of justice---Sentence of 14 years' R.I. and other sentences awarded to accused by the Trial Court were reduced to five years' R.I., with fine of Rs.2 crores---With said modification in the impugned judgment regarding the quantum of sentence, appeal filed by accused was dismissed by the High Court.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH
Side Opponent : Sh. LIAQAT ALI, SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION, LAHORE
---S.409---West Pakistan anti -corruption Establishment Ordinance (XX of 1961), Sched---Special. Judge, anti -corruption , had sent the case to the anti -corruption Establishment for re-investigation on the ground that the same had been investigated by the local police---Validity---Investigation conducted by the ordinary police qua the office falling within the schedule of West Pakistan anti -corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, was valid and proceedings could not be quashed on that ground---Impugned order had been passed at the fag end of the trial when the case was fixed for recording the statements of accused under S. 342, Cr. P. C. ---Impugned order was not sustainable and the same was set aside accordingly with the direction to Trial-Court to decide the. case on merits expeditiously.


Citation Name : 2007 PLD 216 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Syed HASAN RAZA
Side Opponent : State
---S. 10(d)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.45 & 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.401---Constitutional petition----Remission, grant of---Kinds of remissions---Remissions were of two kinds, general and special, general remissions were earned by convicts under the Jail Rules, whereas special remissions were granted. by the President of Pakistan under Art.45 of the Constitution; and by the Provincial Government under S.401, Cr.P.C.---Remissions earned under the Jail Rules, were as of right---Since S.10(d) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which had prohibited remissions, was not retrospective in nature, those remissions earned by NAB convicts who were convicted prior to imposition of S.10(d) of the Ordinance, were to be given under Jail Rules---Remissions given by Provincial Government under S.401, Cr.P.C., were normally given On festivals viz. Eid, Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi, Independence Day etc. and were not as of right and could not be claimed as such by any convict, however, denial of such remissions to NAB convicts and allowing same in respect of those convicted under anti -corruption Laws by the Provincial Government, would be discriminatory---Petitioner (NAB convict) in circumstances would be entitled to those remissions, which had been granted by the Provincial Governments under S.401, Cr.P.C. to other prisoners---Insofar as the power of the President of Pakistan under Art.45 of the Constitution to grant or withhold remission was concerned, same was not subject to judicial review---Jail authorities were directed to prepare fresh Jail Rolls of petitioners and release them from Jail.

Citation Name : 2007 MLD 825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : HABIBULLAH
Side Opponent : State
---S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in prosecution evidence being very material and major in nature, could neither be reconciled nor brushed aside, more particularly when the prosecution witnesses were literate and experienced professional police officials quite oftenly appearing as prosecution witnesses in the Courts---Chemical Examiner's report had made the sample of "Charas" received in his office doubtful, being in two pieces and deficient in quanti ty---Prosecution witness who had weighed the "Charas", sealed the same on the spot and prepared the mashirnama of recovery and arrest, was not examined by the prosecution, though he was a key witness---Accused had throughout been pleading his false implication in the case on account of his enmity with the police against whom he had filed a case in the anti -corruption Court and he had placed a copy of the said complaint on record---Possibility of false involvement of accused, thus, could not be ruled out---Case against accused was full of doubts, benefit of which must go to him---Accused was acquitted in circumstances.



Citation Name : 2006 YLR 61 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TURABUL HASSAN
Side Opponent : DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE, TOBA TEK SINGH
---S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of order---Contention that only the anti -corruption Establishment could take action against a Government servant or public servant and that the District Officer Revenue and the Deputy District Officer Revenue had no such authority, had no force---Said Revenue Authorities being the custodian of the Revenue Record, were responsible for initiating appropriate action against any tampering with or fabrication of the Revenue Record---Forgery, fabrication or tampering with any official record was a crime by all definitions---No universal principle was available that during the pendency of civil suit a criminal case could not be registered---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine accordingly.


Citation Name : 2007 PLD 269 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, MULTAN
---Rule, 15(1)(a)---Rule 15(1)(a) of Punjab anti -corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 not mandatory---Provisions of Rule 15(1)(a) were directory in nature and word "shall" used in said rule was to be treated as "may" as no consequence had been provided for non-compliance or the same.

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 186 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : RAZA-UR-REHMAN
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Home Department
---Ss. 10(d) & 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.45 & 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.401---Constitutional petition---Remissions---Types---Claim for---Section 10(d) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which had prohibited remissions to those persons convicted under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 being not retrospective in nature, could not take away vested rights of petitioners who Were convicted prior to addition of section 10(d) in the Ordinance, to earn remission---Remissions were of two types, general and special, the former of which (general) were earned by convict under the Jail Rules, whereas the latter (special) consisted of remissions granted by the President of Pakistan under Art.45 of the Constitution and by the Provincial Government under S.401, Cr.P.C.---Remissions earned under the Jail Rules were as of right---Section 10(d), National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 being not 'retrospective in nature, remissions earned by persons convicted under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 prior to the imposition of S.10(d) of the Ordinance, were to be given to them under the Jail Rules---Remissions given by the Provincial Government under S.401, Cr.P.C., were normally given on festive occasions like, Eid-e-Meladun Nabi, Independence Day, etc. and were not as of right and could not be claimed as such by the convict---Denial of remission to convicts under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and allowing same in respect of those convicted under the anti -corruption Laws by Provincial Government, would be discriminatory---Petitioner would be entitled to those remissions which had been granted by the Provincial Government under S.401, Cr.P.C. to other persons---Power of the President of Pakistan under Art.45 of the Constitution to grant or withhold remissions, was not subject to judicial review---Inspector-General Prisons and Jail Authorities failed to grant remission during some years to all convicts and in some years to those convicts under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which policy could not be endorsed at all under the law--Where Inspector-General Prisons and the Superintendent of Jail, had denied remissions to ordinary convicts as earned by them under the Prison Rules, same could not be upheld; similarly denial of remissions due to petitioners and convicts under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 who were convicted prior to 22-11-2002, when S.10(d) was added in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 would be an exercise without any legal sanction as S.10(d) would not apply retrospectively.


Citation Name : 2007 PLD 139 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SALEEM RAZA
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 9(a) & 10(d)---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.218, 219, 468, 471, 472 & 477-A---Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S.5---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 25---Reasonable classification---Doctrine of intelligible differentia---Applicability---Petitioners being convicts under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 were denied remissions of their sentence---Contention of authorities was that petitioners belonged to different class of accused---Validity---If for the commission of same offences, accused persons were convicted by Courts other than Accountability Court, they were entitled to remission, while convicts under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for commission of same offences under similar set of circumstances would be deprived of remission on account of 5,10(d) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Public servants indulged in corruption and corrupt practices or criminal misconduct belonged to the same class---Merely on the basis of change of forum of trial or change of term defining offences, accused could not be termed as belonging to different class---As in respect of public servants found involved in corruption or criminal misconduct, offences punishable under Ss.218 and 219, P.P.C. which are ordinarily triable by the Courts specified in Second Schedule to Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, are also triable by Accountability Court---Punishment and nature of offences are still same---Similarly offences triable under Ss.469, 471, 472 and 477-A, P.P.C. are triable ordinarily by Court specified in Second Schedule to Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in appropriate cases by Special Courts under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, and Special Judges appointed under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, as well as by Accountability Courts by virtue of S.10 (b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Nature of offences are same and punishments provided are also the same---Special rules of evidence contained in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, Prevention of corruption Act, 1947, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, are also similar---Merely on account of change of forum one set of convicts under the same class not convicted by Accountability Court is entitled to remission and thus would serve out their sentence, much earlier than the other set of convicts in the same category or class convicted by Accountability Court---No intelligible differentia exists distinguishing one group of persons from other group of persons, and thus no reasonable classification permissible for such purpose---Merely on the basis of change of forum, classification cannot be held to be permissible as reasonable because such classification would not be based on any real and substanti al distinction.


Citation Name : 2006 SCMR 1818 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Prof. Dr. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ASIM and others
Side Opponent : UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE through Registrar
---Ss. 3 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)---Compulsory retirement---Appointment of Inquiry Officer---Inquiry under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, was initiated on the charges of misconduct, corruption , cheating and making unlawful gains---Retired Judge of High Court was appointed as Inquiry Officer on the choice of civil servant, who after inquiry, recommended dismissal of civil servant from service and recovery of Rs.1,00,000 unlawfully gained by him---Competent Authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement and recovery of Rs.1,00,000--Service Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of civil servant and set aside the penalty of' recovery of Rs.1,00,000 while that of compulsory retirement was maintained---Plea raised by civil servant was that Inquiry. Officer should have been an official having rank higher than the civil servant---Validity---Civil servant could not object to the appointment of an ex-Judge of High Court as inquiry Officer contending that such appointment was not proper or legal as it violated the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Appointment of Inquiry Officer was made on the basis of the request of the civil servant himself---Inquiry proceedings were fair, transparent and were conducted in accordance with law---Inquiry Officer had conducted a detailed inquiry, recorded statements of large number of witnesses, civil servant, was allowed not only cross-examination on the witnesses but also to produce evidence in his defence---Civil servant, in circumstances, was estopped by his own words and conduct from challenging order of appointment of such Inquiry Officer-No prejudice was shown to have been caused to the civil servant because of the appointment of such Inquiry Officer---Civil servant failed to prove any mala fide, either of law or of fact---Charges against the civil servant stood proved and authorities partially accepting his representation acted in a benign manner---Disciplinary proceedings initiated and completed against civil servant did not suffer from any material irregularity---Supreme Court declined to set aside the proceedings merely on the basis of technicalities---No substanti al question of law of public importance was involved in the case to attract jurisdiction of High Court under Art.212(3) of the Constitution---Leave to appeal was refused.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 915 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : ABDUL WAHID
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 561-A, 235 & 397---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.64, 409 & 468---Prevention of corruption Act ,(II of 1947), S.5(2)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.25---Sentence of imprisonments in lieu of fine---Running of said sentence concurrently in addition to substanti ve sentences---Petitioner had prayed that sentences of imprisonments in lieu of fine be directed to run concurrently in addition to substanti ve sentences---Provisions of S.64, P.P.C. which had also been made applicable to the offences under local and special law by virtue of S.25 of General Clauses Act, 1897, had provided that in default of payment of fine, the offender would suffer imprisonment for a certain term which imprisonment would be in excess of any other imprisonment to which an accused could have been sentenced---Sentence of imprisonment in default was not a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of S.235 or 5.397, Cr.P.C. and court had no power to direct sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine to run concurrently---Provisions of S.35, Cr.P.C. deal only with substanti ve sentences and they have no application to the sentence of imprisonment ordered in default of payment of fine.


Citation Name : 2006 MLD 78 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : ALLAH NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 561-A, 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Quashing of case---Petitioner/accused against whom F.I.R. was registered under Ss.420; 468 & 471, P.P.C. approached Trial Court for his post-arrest bail; but Trial Court not only rejected bail application, but also directed the local police to include S.5 of Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 in the list of offences against petitioner and to hand over case to concerned authorities---Validity---Local police concerned did not have the power to register a case against petitioner for his official acts done in capacity as a Government servant---Only anti -corruption Establishment could register any case against Government officials---Registration of case by local police against petitioner, in circumstances was not only mala fide and illegal, but also without jurisdiction---Where a certain thing was required to be done in a certain manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all---Trial Court which was seized of the matter of bail, should have confined its power to Ss.497/498, Cr.P.C.---Direction given by Trial Court, appeared to be in excess of his jurisdiction---Orders of Trial Court for registration of case against petitioner, were declared to have been passed without lawful authority having no legal effect and were quashed.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2713 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SAFDAR
Side Opponent : DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, PUNJAB
---S. 173---Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, (1of 1983), Arts.9 & 14---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 486 & 471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2) ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Complainant got registered F.I.R. against accused/petitioner regarding issuance of incorrect "Fard Malkiat " by accused/petitioner---Subsequently matter became sub judice before Civil Court---On a complaint filed by complainant/respondent, Ombudsman directed complainant to approach Director General anti -corruption Establishment---As matter was not finally concluded complainant again approached Ombudsman who re-issued direction to respondents/ officials of anti -corruption Establishment to re-investigate the matter---Petitioner/ accused challenged the order of Ombudsman as to re-investigation of the matter through writ petition, raising plea that order was passed by the Ombudsman without affording him an opportunity of being heard---Validity ---Case of the petitioner/accused needed a factual inquiry which the High Court could not undertake in constitutional jurisdiction---Accused/petitioner failed to prove that re-investigation had caused any prejudice to accused---Multiple investigations could be carried out in criminal cases even after submission of report under S.173, Cr. P. C. and fresh challan could also be submitted---Criminal proceedings were not barred in presence of civil proceedings rather both types of proceedings could be continued simultaneously---Accused/ petitioner's contention that Ombudsman's order was passed without affording accused/petitioner an opportunity of hearing was without force as requirement of an opportunity to be heard before adverse order was passed, did not in all situations mean giving of personal hearing.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM MUSTAFA
Side Opponent : State
----Ss. 420/466/467/468/471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Allegation against the accused was that he by making a false entry of the death of his brother in the death register got his land transferred in his own name---Trial Court after framing the charge against the accused recorded the statements of six prosecution witnesses and also examined him under S.342, Cr. P. C. but thereafter it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and vide impugned order directed for submission of challan before the Court of ordinary jurisdiction---No reliable incriminating evidence had come on record against the accused before the trial Court---Accused had been suffering for the last about ten years and now his trial by the Court of ordinary jurisdiction would not improve the prosecution case and it would be sheer waste of time---Impugned order passed by the Special Judge, anti -corruption , was consequently set aside and the proceedings pending against the accused were quashed in circumstances.
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 : 2006 MLD 78 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : ALLAH NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 561-A, 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Quashing of case---Petitioner/accused against whom F.I.R. was registered under Ss.420; 468 & 471, P.P.C. approached Trial Court for his post-arrest bail ; but Trial Court not only rejected bail application, but also directed the local police to include S.5 of Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 in the list of offences against petitioner and to hand over case to concerned authorities---Validity---Local police concerned did not have the power to register a case against petitioner for his official acts done in capacity as a Government servant---Only anti -corruption Establishment could register any case against Government officials---Registration of case by local police against petitioner, in circumstances was not only mala fide and illegal, but also without jurisdiction---Where a certain thing was required to be done in a certain manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all---Trial Court which was seized of the matter of bail , should have confined its power to Ss.497/498, Cr.P.C.---Direction given by Trial Court, appeared to be in excess of his jurisdiction---Orders of Trial Court for registration of case against petitioner, were declared to have been passed without lawful authority having no legal effect and were quashed.


Citation Name : 2006 MLD 1765 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : NAZIR
Side Opponent : State
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Sindh Enquiries and anti -corruption Rules, 1993, R. 11(5)---bail , grant of--F.I.R. showed that during period from 2003 to 2006 certain properties lying in Malkhana were misappropriated by accused; that it was yet to be decided whether police had rightly investigated the matters, particularly in view of R.11(5) of Sindh Enquiries and anti -corruption Rules, 1993; that whether accused in fact had been handed over the charge of Malkhana and that whether out of as many as 20 persons appointed for relevant period from 2003 to 2006, who had misappropriated properties from 'Malkhana---Accused were admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2006 MLD 305 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Syed RASHID IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/467/471/161/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of---Abscondence---Statements made by the witnesses, mentioned in the Challan, before the Investigating Officer had not been deliberately substanti ated by making the SSP a witness to the prosecution case---Reply of the State Counsel that the SSP would be joined as a witness after report of the Handwriting Expert was hardly satisfactory---Background of enmity was reflected from the documents produced by the accused along with his bail application, which were not denied by the prosecution---Case of accused, thus, needed, further inquiry---Abscondence of co accused could .not be made a ground for denying bail to the accused---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances


Citation Name : 2005 YLR 3133 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MANSOOR AKBAR
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161, 420, 468, 471, 477-A & 34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of --- Two co-accused were not entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail for the reason that punishment provided for the offence, allegedly committed by them, though did not come within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., but their case fell within an exceptional class warranti ng refusal inasmuch as the Courts in matters of bail had to see the seriousness of offence committed by an individual in his private capacity who belonged to a distinct class and qualified to be treated falling within an exceptional circumstance of the nature; warranti ng refusal of bail even where maximum sentence was less than 10 years R.I. for the offence involved---Practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C., in absence of an exceptional circumstance, could be followed and the Court had to be strict in exercise of discretion of bail granti ng to offenders---Material was available on record to connect said co-accused with commission of offence involved---Application moved by said co-accused for pre-arrest bail , was dismissed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2004 SCMR 283 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : NASEEM MALIK
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/468/417/477-A/ 109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---bail , cancellation of---Accused was specifically named and comprehensively described in the F.I.R. as one of the conspirators and preparators of the crime ---Coaccused after his arrest from the Bank had mentioned the accused as one of his collaborators whose statement could be validly taken into consideration while deciding such matters---Accused had approached the Special Court for bail while his bail petition was pending Disposal before the Supreme Court and he withheld this fact from the Special Court--Special Court had also ignored the finding of the High Court that the accused was not entitled to grant of bail even on merits of the case and in granti ng bail to him it had acted contrary to the conclusions reached by High Court and that too on the basis of the stance taken by the Investigating Officer which was seriously questionable ---Accused had secured his release on bail by grossly abusing the process of Court and he could not be permitted to continue enjoying the fruits of such an ill-gotten gain---bail allowed to accused was cancelled accordingly.


Citation Name : 2004 YLR 1832 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NIAZ AHMAD SHAH
Side Opponent : GHULAM ABBAS and another
----S. 497(5)---Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), Ss.2(a), 4 (3) (c), 5 (1) (7), 10(3) & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5 (2)---bail , cancellation of---Cancellation of bail had been sought on the ground that Additional Sessions Judge was not empowered to grant bail in the case of accused as per notification issued by Government dated 12-4-1975, in super session of all earlier Notifications---Claim of applicants seeking cancellation of bail was that in the present case, only Special Judge anti -corruption was empowered to grant bail and not the Additional Sessions Judge---


Citation Name : 2004 MLD 1940 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ADIL FAHEEM RIZVI
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/468/471/109 ---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---bail , grant of--­Further inquiry---Bills showing delivery of wheat in question by accused were not denied to have been issued by employees of Food Department---Prosecution had collected no evidence incriminating accused with alleged offence or showing any connivance or conspiracy among accused and employees of Food Department---Prima facie there appeared to be no evidence showing involvement of accused in the false and fake preparation of bills on basis of which case was registered against him---Accused was found innocent by Investigating Officer and case of accused was of further inquiry as quanti ty of wheat claimed to be missing/misappropriated, was discrepant to one mentioned in F.I.Rs--­Accused was arrested and he, after joining police investigation, had been remitted to judicial lock-up---Accused would face the, sentence, if ultimately convicted in case at the conclusion of the trial---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


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 SCMR 282 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SAEED MEHDI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 ----S. 9(b) [as amended] read with Preamble, Ss. 9(a)(iii)(iv) & 16--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)---Post-arrest bail , grant of---corruption and corrupt practices---Petitioner prima facie did not appear to be guilty of misuse of official position or misappropriation of public funds to his own use or any relatives or friends---Prosecution did not allege that amount sanctioned was not actually spent on the works for which it was approved---Truth or otherwise of such allegations could only be determined at the trial after analysis of evidence that might be adduced by the parties--Trial had not yet commenced for no fault attributable to the petitioner--Object of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 as contained in its preamble provided for expeditious trial of scheduled offences within shortest possible time as re-assured in S.16 of the Ordinance postulating day to day trial of case and its conclusion within thirty days---Such object did not seen: to be near its achievement in such circumstances---Petitioner required immediate treatment, hospitalization and close monitoring by Medical Specialists in a well-equipped hospital, which object could not be achieved by detaining him in jail indefinitely or referring him to a hospital for a limited time---Grant of bail on medical ground was not opposed by prosecution---Petitioner had made out a case for grant of bail , which could not be- withheld by way of punishment---Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and accepted the same by way of granti ng bail to petitioner.


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.