Disqualification to contest elections:- Arrest of petitioner under charges of corruption and corrupt practices-Release of petitioner from custody after gaining benefit of plea of bargain in terms of S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance 2001-Fact that amount in question, was got deposited not by the petitioner himself but by his brother, would not help case of petitioner in any way-If petitioner as per his claim was not beneficiary of plea of bargaining, he could have challenged the same before any Court of law or at least to Chairman NAB denying plea of bargaining but he kept silent till rejection of his nomination papers which shows his active acquiescence by conduct in plea of bargaining-Petitioner, thus, could not be allowed to approabate and reprobate in the same breath. PLJ 2003 Quetta 32 Accused had made an agreement with the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation agreeing to clear the entire outstanding loan of Rs.6,50,26,326 in six installments ending on 31-8-2002, which was not a plea-bargaining agreement in stricto senso as contemplated in S.25 of NAB Ordinance-Said agreement, inter alia, stipulated re-investigation and re-arrest in the event of its violation-Since final report under S.173, Cr.P.C. had not been submitted before the Accountability Court, the release of accused for all intents and purposes was a discharge under S.63, Cr.P.C. amounting to release from custody simpliciter and not amounting to cancellation of the case or stopping of re-investigation-Impugned order had two dimensions, one administrative and the other judicial-Release of accused had reflected the former dimension whereas his disqualification under S.15 of the NAB Ordinance had reflected the latter dimension-Court could not have passed such a judicial order, firstly because it was not seized of a Reference against the accused and secondly the accused had not deposited any defaulted loan or asset with the NAB in terms of S.25 of the NAB Ordinance-Said order was a final order amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of High Court under S.32 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999-Impugned order had been passed without hearing the accused who had been condemned unheard-Application filed by the Chairman NAB before the Accountability Court for the release of accused was only a request for his release under S.9(c) of the NAB Ordinance as it neither spoke of a plea bargain agreement between the accused and the NAB Authorities, nor it requested for his disqualification under S.15 of the said Ordinance-Impugned orders insofar as they disqualified the accused in terms of S.25 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, were set aside in circumstances. Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2001 SC 607; Parul Bala Sen Gupta v. The State AIR 1937 Cal. 379; Din Muhammad Shakir alias D.M. Shakir v. DSP, Ichhra, Lahore PLD 1977 Lah. 180; Mst. Kausar Bibi v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Crimes Branch, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others 1996 PCr.LJ 124; Habib v. The State 1983 SCMR 370; Ashiq Hussain v. Sessions Judge, Lodhran and 3 others PLD 2001 Lah. 271 and Muhammad Waseem v. Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan and 3 others 1985 PCr.LJ 224 ref
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.