Find a Lawyer

RAZIA BEGUM versus NAB

The accountability court signed a voluntary return with the ope jurisdiction-accused National Accountability Bureau to record an investigation into the real property of the anonymous property under which it surrendered immovable and immovable assets - the subject property which It was also part of the applicant's name. List of surrendered properties - The petitioner moved the application for removal of his property from the said list petition The petition filed by the applicant as well as the objections filed by him were dismissed by the Accountability Court, and Application for title transfer was allowed by the Accountability Bureau and possession of the property transferred to the accused. Claims by the Accountability Bureau that the accused seized huge sums from the Government Bank and used those funds to purchase transferable and immovable properties, which were named after various relatives. The applicant is also included, so the accountability court headed by the petitioner was properly dismissed. Accuracy - The applicant appeared as a witness and presented the actual sale of the subject property, however, in his own investigation, he recognized that he was a housewife and had no source of income. On her own - petitioner claimed that her husband and son had provided funds to buy the property in question, but they did not present either of these to the court. Fails to provide that her husband or son must provide the necessary funds to purchase the property.

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 665

Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan,

Maqbool Baqar and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ

RAZIA BEGUM—Petitioner

versus

NAB and others—Respondents

Civil Petition No. 1834 of 2016 and Criminal Petition No. 615 of 2016, decided on 26th May, 2017.

(Against judgment dated 10.03.2016 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1238 and Writ Petition No. 10824 of 2010)

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—Ss. 9(v) £ 25(a)—Property acquired through corruption and corrupt practices held in the name of another person—Jurisidiction of

Accountability Court to record a finding regarding real ownership of benami property—Scope—Accused entered into a Voluntary Return Agreement with the National Accountability Bureau surrendering his moveable and immovable assets—Subject property which was in the name of the petitioner was also a part of the list of the properties surrendered—Petitioner moved an application seeking deletion of her property from the said list—Application filed by petitioner as well as the objections filed by her were dismissed by the Accountability Court, and the application of the Accountability Bureau for transfer of title and possession of the properties surrendered by accused was allowed — Contention on behalf of Accountability Bureau that accused had misappropriated huge sums of money from the Government Bank and had utilized the said funds to purchase moveable and immovable properties which were held in the names of different relatives including the petitioner, therefore the objection filed by the petitioner had been rightly dismissed by the Accountability Court—Validity—Petitioner appeared as a witness and produced the original sale deed of subject property, however, in her cross-examination she admitted that she was a housewife and had no source of income of her own—Petitioner claimed that her husband and son had provided the funds to purchase the property in question, but she did not produce either of them before the Court—Petitioner also failed to produce any evidence to show that her husband or son had the necessary sources of income to provide the requisite funds to purchase the property—While the petitioner claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.600,000/- to purchase the property, in her statement before the Accountability Court she took the stance that she had paid a sum of Rs. 1 million as price of the property—Petitioner also took contradictory positions regarding the mode, manner and place of payment and stated that she had not directly paid the amount in question and that in fact payment had been made by her son/husband—Record also showed that the property in question was initially purchased by the accused and was subsequently sold by him in favour of his real aunt petitioner—Courts below were, therefore, justified and had valid grounds for coming to the conclusion that the subject property was owned by the accused and was transferred by him in favour of his real auntlpetitioner in order to hoodwink and defraud the Bank—Reasons recorded by the courts below justifying the freezing order as well as the order directing the competent authorities to transfer the properties in favour of the Accountability Bureau/Government Bank were based upon adequate and sufficient evidence available on the record — Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. fpp.669, 670] A & C

(b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

____gs & 25(a)—Property acquired through corruption and corrupt

practices held in the name of another person—Jurisidiction of Accountability Court to record a finding regarding real ownership of property—Scope—Under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the Accountability Court had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide all questions arising out of a charge of corrupt and illegal practices specially where properties acquired by misappropriated or corruption based funds were surrendered pursuant to a Voluntary Retun Agreement under S. 25 of the Ordinance, [p. 670] B

M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nasir Mehmood Mughal, Special Prosecutor, NAB and Arshad Qayyum, Special Prosecutor, NAB for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2017.

best advocate from Havelian lawyer