Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2397 2002 SLD 2397 2002 PLD 458
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No .1912 of 2000, decided on 13th June, 2002. dates of hearing: 2nd, 7th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd, 30th May and 4th June, 2002
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J
Khawaja Haris Ahmad for Appellant. Ahmer Bilal Sufi, Advocate/Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB and Muhammad Ghani, Advocate/Special Prosecutor for NAB

M. ANWAR SAIFULLAH KHAN

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-----Ss. 9(a)(vi) & 35---Ehtesab Ordinance (XX of 1997), S.3(l)(d) --- Rules of Business (Federal Government), R.5(14)---Corruption and corrupt practices-­Allegation against the accused was that while holding the public office as a Minister he abused his official position by issuing directions to the Chairman of the Government-owned Corporation to appoint 145 persons in the organization in violation of law and the relevant rules ---Validity---Concerned-­Secretary of the Department, Officer concerned or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, was duty bound to apprise the elected representative (Minister) of the legal position in the matter---None of the said officers had apprised the Minister of the correct legal position that the relevant regulations/rules were not applicable to the temporary employment/jobs and no rules needed to be relaxed and Chairman of the Corporation himself .was Competent Authority and he issued the requisite orders---Chairman, therefore, could not absolve himself of the responsibility both morally and legally. Dr. Farooq Sattar v. The State and others PLD 2002 Lah. 95 ref. (b) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 9---Corruption and corrupt practice---Allegation against the accused was that while holding the public office as Minister, he abused his official position by issuing direction to the Chairman of the Government-owned Corporation to appoint 145. persons in the organization in violation of law and relevant rules---Undue influence---Allegation of undue influence could not be inferred in absence of any positive evidence---No prosecution witness in the case had alleged undue influence or pressure rather admittedly all the notifications of appointments, except three were issued after the accused was no longer a Minister. (c) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 9(a)(vi)---Corruption and corrupt practices---Allegation against the accused was that while holding the public office as Minister, he abused his official position by issuing direction to the Chairman of the Government-­owned Corporation to appoint…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492