Appeal against acquittal-Accused had neither sanctioned the advance nor they were beneficiary of the money advanced by the Chairman of the Establishment to the co-accused-NAB Authorities had withdrawn the case against the said absconding co-accused and secured his discharge without even asking him to surrender before the Accountability Court which was a matter of great favour to him-If such magnanimity could be shown to an accused person who was the actual beneficiary of the alleged corrupt practices and was fugitive at law having remained absconder till conclusion of the case, there could not be any earthly reason for denying the benefit of acquittal to the accused who had at the most complied with the orders of their superior without any allegation whatsoever of deriving any monetary benefit-Order of acquittal recorded by the Accountability Court was in consonance with the principles of justice and did not suffer from any illegality or miscarriage of justice and warranted no interference-In the interest of good governance the officials performing their acts in good faith should be protected otherwise they would be reluctant to take decision and/or avoid or prolong the same on one pretext or the other which would ultimately lead to paralysis of State-machinery and such a course cannot be countenanced by the Supreme Court-Such officials have to be protected where there was no direct evidence of any corrupt motive or of any illegal gain-Prosecution in the present case had no evidence direct or indirect to establish any personal gain on the part of the accused-Appeal against acquittal of accused it the instance of National Accountability Bureau was dismissed in limine in circumstances. Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 ref. PLD 2003 Karachi 122 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
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.