Find a Lawyer

SOHAIL ADEEB BACHANI versus THE STATE

Section 9 and 25 land Corruption in relation to the land scam award Payment of compensation without issuing award - Bail, denial - The defendant admitted that he only executed the award, which was already done by his predecessor. Was done - the justification - the specific role was attributed to the accused - the accused could easily identify the error on the file and return it to the same chain after which the error could be corrected - the accused closed his eyes. And was part of a series of offenses - public works when it was the responsibility to deal with a file that was short. Do the same scan and identify any obvious irregularities / malpractices beforehand and return the file for necessary action otherwise it can expose itself to criminal liability - the accused was linked to the crime. The accused were denied the circumstances, [pp. 420, 421, 422] A, B, C & D.

PLD 2017 Sindh 415

Before Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Acting C.J. and Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, J

SOHAIL ADEEB BACHANI and others—Petitioners

versus

The STATE though NAB and others—Respondents

C.P.D-Nos.7144, D-7930 and 5180 of 2015, decided on 10th March, 2016.

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

—Ss. 9 & 25—Corrupt practices with regard to land scam—Payment of compensation without issuance of award—Bail, refusal of— Contention of accused was that he only implemented the awards which had already been made by his predecessor—Validity—Specific role had been attributed to the accused—Accused could have simply marked the omission on the file and sent the same back down the chain whereupon the omission could have been rectified—Accused had blindly made payment and was a part of the chain of criminality—Public functionary when dealing with a file had an obligation to briefly scan the same and point out any obvious irregularities /illegalities which had already taken place and return the file for necessary action otherwise he might expose himself to criminal liability—Accused had nexus with the offence—Bail was refused to the accused in circumstances, [pp. 420, 421, 422] A, B, C & D

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

—-Ss. 9 & 25—Corrupt practices with regard to land scam—Payment of compensation without issuance of award—Ad interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of—Scope—Accused had signed general power of attorney as the Sub-Registrar when he was no more the Sub-Registrar—Accused was aware that he had neither power or authority to sign the power of attorney which enabled the beneficiaries to receive payment—Act of

accused was an intricate part in the fulfilment of the scam—Accused had nexus with the offence—Ad interim pre arrest bail was recalled, in circumstances. [p. 423] E & F

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

—mS. 25(a)—Corrupt practices with regard to land scam—Payment of compensation without issuance of award—Bail, grant of—Voluntary return, option of—Scope—Option of voluntary return would lapse once the inquiry was converted into an investigation and only the option of plea bargain would remain intact—Under plea bargain an accused would be deemed convicted for the offence charged whilst he would not be convicted under a voluntary return—Inquiry, in the present case, had been converted into an investigation against the accused and a reference had been filed by the NAB—Option of voluntary return would no more open to the accused—Option of voluntary return had extinguished before the accused had even approached NAB for an extension in the time for him to make payment of the second installment—Accused had not been infÓrm;ed about the upgrading of his inquiry into investigation—Bureau had no right to cancel the voluntary return with regard to the accused when it converted the inquiry into investigation before the accused had defaulted on his obligation under voluntary return—Status of accused had to remain under voluntary return until he defaulted—NAB could not arbitrarily deprive the accused of his statutory right to voluntary return once he had offered to enter into voluntary return and NAB had accepted the same subject to that the terms and conditions had not been breached— Second installment of voluntary return had been paid by the accused in the Court—Final installment was directed to be paid by the accused within four weeks after release from custody on bail—If accused failed to pay final installment within specified period, voluntary return should stand cancelled and only option to him would be plea bargain or to face trial and his bail would stand automatically cancelled—Accused was granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- to the satisfaction of Nazir of the Court. [pp. 424, 425, 426] G, H, J, K, L & M

Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali v. Muhammad Amir 1987 CLC 2095 distinguished.

Chandi Ram v. Chairman NAB 2008 PCr.LJ 1172 ref.

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

—S. 25 (a)—Offer to return the benefit acquired—Scope—Person who was subject to inquiry (prior to its conversion into an investigation) had a statutory right to voluntary come forward and offer to return the

assets or gains acquired or made by him in the course or as the consequences of an offence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 but his such offer might or might not be accepted by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau. [p. 426] N

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

—Preamble—Object of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was recovery of ill-gotten gain. [p. 425] I

Shahab Sarki for Petitiner in C.P. No.D-7144 of 2015, S.M. Iqbal for Petitioner in C.P.No.D-7930 of 2015 and C.P.No.D-5180 of 2015.

Noor Muhammad Dayo ADPG NAB for Respondents.

Saeed A. Memon, Standing Counsel for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th February, 2016.

top advocates from Bhan Saeedabad lawyer