27. Vires of Cls. (i) to (v) of S. 9(a) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999-Clauses (i) to (iv) of S.9(a) and S.16-A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, if construed according to their plain language cannot withstand the test of constitutionality-Absolute discretion without any meaningful guidelines enabling the executive to pick and choose some persons for trial under the NAB Ordinance and leaving others to be tried by other for a would render such provisions repugnant to Art. 25 of the Constitution however, at the same time the principle that all efforts need to be made by Courts in the interpretative process to save rather than destroy the statute, cannot be overlooked-Striking down the said provisions of the NAB Ordinance as ultra vires the Constitution would practically amount to robbing it of its main contents inasmuch as Accountability Courts would have jurisdiction only to try those offences which were not punishable under any earlier law-Such course might amount to doing violence to the intention of the Legislature to deal with high level corruption in society-Supreme Court having held a large number of its provisions to be intra vires the Constitution and having directed amendments in others. High Court might be deviating from its obligation under Art. 190 of the Constitution, to act in aid of Supreme Court, by striking down the main provisions of the said Ordinance, another reason for declining to strike down the impugned provisions was that the NAB Ordinance did not merely provide for a new mode of trial and punishment for offences under the pre-existing laws but also created certain new offences which provisions had not been questioned on the anvil of Art. 25 of the Constitution–Principle of deviating from the literal construction or reading down the provisions of a statute can be resorted to by the Courts when they find a literal construction to affect the Constitutional validity of the law–Literal construction of the impugned cls. (i) to (v) of S.9(a) of NAB Ordinance cannot stand the test of Constitutionality, they have to be read down to the extent that a Constitutionally permissible classification is established-Qualifications laid down in cl. (ix) will also have to be read in the other clauses of S. 9(a) of the NAB Ordinance in other words the discretion of the Chairman NAB or an officer authorized by him to file a Reference before the Accountability Court is not absolute or arbitrary–Such Reference could be filed only when the Chairman or the Authorized Officer is satisfied that the amount involved is of large magnitude and resort to the facility of pre-bargaining with the accused would be in the national interest-Case would only be triable under the ordinary law in the absence of such satisfaction. Abdul Aziz Memon v. State A.A.50 of 2002; Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607; Waris Meah v. State PLD 1957 SC 157; Inamur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 563; Liaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041; Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 1445; Atiya Bibi Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2001 SCMR 1161; Safdar v. Government of Sindh 2001 SCMR 1231; State v. Dosso and another PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 533; Azizullah Memon v. Province of Balochistan PLD 1993 SC 361; Illahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Amir Khatoon v. Faiz Ahmed and others PLD 1991 SC 787 and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675