Find a Lawyer

BRIG. (R) IMTIAZ AHMAD versus THE STATE

ections Sections 9 (A) (V) and 14 - Assessment of evidence beyond known sources of income - Onus exchange, - Applicable - Anonymous property - To prove ounce - The accused was convicted by the trial court and Sentenced to prison for 8 years with fine - Justification - Cannot be held responsible for income from illicit sources or property owned by illicit source - Prosecutor did not insist that the accused be excluded from known sources of income Specific source has to be specified - alleged to explain the legal source of his income and in response, he not only presented his defense witnesses but also described his entire assets and purchased these assets. Defines sources that were in the form of profits in various businesses that he used to generate wealth estimates and income tax credits. As well as the details announced in the statement form for the public servant, the asse did not succeed in attracting the accused to prove his innocence, merely by showing the details of the deposit - the High Court said. Set aside the convictions and convictions passed by the trial court and acquitted him of the charges and also released the property in [Page 34, 41] A&G

P L D 2017 Lahore 23

Before Ali Baqar Najafi and S.M. Kazim Raza Shamsi, JJ

Brig. (R) IMTIAZ AHMAD—Appellant

versus

The STATE—Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.25-E of 2002, heard on 19th June, 2016.

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

—Ss. 9(a)(v) & 14—Assets beyond known sources of income— Appreciation of evidence—Shifting of onus, principle of— Applicability—Benami properties—Onus to prove—Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years with fine—Validity—Accused could not be held responsible for having owned the properties purchased through unknown sources of income or illegitimate means—Prosecution had not urged that accused was required to explain the specific source beyond known sources of income—Accused was made to explain his legal source of income and in response to the same, he not only produced his own defence witnesses but had also explained his entire assets and had reasonably explained the source to purchase those assets which were in the fÓrm; of profits in various business which he had declared in his wealth statements and income tax returns as well as in declaration fÓrm; prescribed for a government servant—Merely by showing details of assets and without disclosing source of income, prosecution was not successful in shifting onus to accused to prove his innocence—High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and acquitted accused of the charge and also released properties in question—Appeal was allowed in circumstances, [pp. 34, 41] A & G

Ghumman’s case PLD 2004 Lah. 155; Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National Accountability Bureau and others PLD 2011 SC 1144 and Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2011 SC 607 ref.

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

—Ss. 9(a)(v) & 17(b)—Proceedings of Trial Court—Nature of proceedings—Inquisitorial/Adversarial—Assets beyond known sources of income—Scope—Trial Court on its own cannot adopt inquisitorial proceedings to calculate known sources of income in the judgment— Trial Court is simply required to weigh prosecution evidence and to see as to whether it has successfully proved the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ip. 34] B

Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National Accountability Bureau and others PLD 2011 SC 1144 rel.

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

—Ss. 9(a)(v) & 26—Approver, statement of—Properties in question were confiscated by the Trial Court on the statements of co-accused who were made approvers—Validity—Properties in question could not be confiscated on the statements of approvers who were not permitted to become approver by the order of the Chairman National Accountability Bureau, furthermore, vendors of the properties in questions were not produced before Trial Court, [p. 40] C

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

—Ss. S(d)(a) & 14(a)(v)—Benami transaction—Proof—Possession of the property, the written transaction, and the circumstances under which benami transactions are made are required to be disclosed before Trial Court by prosecution, [p. 40] D

Mst. Zahida Sattar and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 408 rel.

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

—S. 9(a)(v)—Assets beyond known sources of income—Income Tax and Wealth Tax declarations—Source of income—Proof—Declaration for the purpose of income tax and wealth tax cannot be used to ascertain source of income to determine assets beyond means of accused by National Accountability Bureau. Ip. 41] E

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

—S. 27—Porter to seek assistance— Intelligence Bureau, infÓrm;ation from— Scope— National Accountability Bureau, under S.27 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 can always probe and receive infÓrm;ation from any government department including Intelligence Bureau to dig out the reality of funds which may have been utilized to purchase properties, fp. 41] F

Kh. Haris Ahmad and Syed Maqsooma Zahra Bokhari for Appellant.

Muhammad Shoaib Khan, ADPG and Muhammad Shahid Mehmood, Senior Special Prosecutor for NAB.

Date of hearing: 19th June, 2015.

online advocate from Amangarh lawyer