Find a Lawyer

NOOR QADIR versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU

ections Sections 9 (a) (iii) and (x), 15 (a), 25 (b) and 10 al penalties (XLV of I860), sections 405 and 109 ruption corruption and corruption procedures election Fighting or holding elections Ineligible for public office ?????? Criminal breach of trust; Accountability court was notified that cash was paid through a citizen's recovery case, presumably, as a result of this time. Will 25 (b) in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 (a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 - since there is no written offer of a plea bargain by the accused, acceptance by the Chairman, NAB and a plea agreement between the accused and Not approved. The accountability by the Chairman was available on court record, so the present case, therefore, would not be a bargaining petition under section 25 (b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and section 15 (a) of the ordinance, therefore, it would not apply. ? Unless reasonable evidence was found by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable, reliable and reliable evidence, the accused could not be prosecuted. After the accusation, no evidence was raised against the blasphemy charges. Neither the defendant's statement was recorded under Section 342, CRPC, nor was he given the opportunity to call defense witnesses - the accused could not be convicted of any crime. And the first part of section 8 (a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, does not apply to it, because it was not formally sentenced after the recording of the evidence - the High Court set aside the impugned sentence. Court remands case, remands accountability court as per law

P L D 2017 Sindh 427 

Before Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh and Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, JJ

NOOR QADIR—Appellant

versus

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, SINDH REGIONAL DIRECTORATE, KARACHI—Respondent

Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 10 of 2012, decided on 31st March, 2016.

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

—Ss. 9(a)(iii) & (x), 15(a), 25(b) & 10—Penal Code (XLV of I860), Ss.405 & 109—Corruption and corrupt practices—Disqualification to contest election or to hold public office—Criminal breach of trust; abetment—Appreciation of evidence—Voluntary return (plea bargain)—Parameters—Accused, after the Accountability Court was infÓrm;ed that the defaulted amount had been repaid through a civil recovery suit, was simply deemed to have been convicted, presumably applying the consequences of S. 25(b) as per the proviso of S. 15(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999—Since no written offer of plea bargain by the accused, acceptance by the Chairman, NAB and no approval of the plea bargain agreement between the accused and Chairman by the Accountability Court was available on the record, present case, therefore, did not amount to a plea bargain under S.25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and S. 15(a) of the Ordinance, therefore, would not be applicable to the accused—Unless the offences in question had been proved by admissible, cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the accused could not have been convicted—Prosecution had not led any evidence against the accused after framing of the charge—Neither the accused’s statement under S.342, Cr.P.C, had been recorded, nor he had opportunity to call the defence witnesses—Accused could not have been convicted for any of the offences and the first part of 8.15(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 would not be applicable to him, as he had not been fÓrm;ally convicted after recording of evidence—High Court, setting aside the impugned conviction order, remanded the case to the Accountability Court to proceed with the Reference against the accused on merits in accordance with law— Appeal was allowed accordingly, [pp. 434, 437] A, B, C, F, G & H

Syed Ali Nawaz Shah v. The State PLD 2003 SC 837 rel.

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

—S. 25—Voluntary return (plea bargain)—Pre-requisites—Essence for a plea bargain under S. 15(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is that apart from the other conditions, there must be a clear written offer by the accused to return the assets or gains made by him; a clear written acceptance of that offer by the Chairman NAB and a speaking order by the Accountability Court approving the plea bargain (agreement) entered into by the accused and the Chairman NAB. [p. 437] E

Syed Ali Nawaz Shah v. The State PLD 2003 SC 837 rel.

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

—S. 25—Voluntary return (plea bargain)—Ingredients /essentials and effect elaborated, [p. 435] D

Shahab Sarki for Appellant.

Noor Muhammad Dayo, ADPG, NAB for Respondent.

Pakistan, top advocate family court from Renala Khurd lawyer