Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 3043 2011 SLD 3043 2011 PCRLJ 104
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 13081 of 2010, decided on 15th July, 2010.
Before Muhammad Anwar Bhaur and Waqar Hassan Mir, JJ
Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz for Petitioner. Haroon-ur-Rashid Cheema, Special Prosecutor for NAB and Allah Rakha, Investigating Officer, NAB for
Respondents.

Syed AZMAT HUSSAIN---Petitioner

VS

CHAIRMAN, NAB and others-Respondents

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 12,23

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S.12---Power to freeze property---Term "associate "---Connotation---"Associate" is a person/accused who is connected in crime with main accused and nexus to the offence is established through investigation highlighting therein any transaction or crime proceeds, the trial of which leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused is "associate" and privy to the offence. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 12 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Petitioner had assailed the order passed by the NAB Authorities for freezing his Bank account as well as the notice directing him to appear before the NAB Authorities as a "Benamidar"---Despite a probe and investigation by the NAB in the matter for the last about three years no evidence whatsoever had become available against the accused/Petitioner---None of the hundreds of claimants appearing and making statements in the matter-had implicated the petitioner in any manner---If the petitioner was not appearing before the NAB Authorities as claimed, even then he could be proceeded against as P.O.; thus, no material was so far available against the’ petitioner as investigation was to be proceeded and material collected, whether the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer or not---During the course of the aforesaid period of three years four Accountability References had been filed against different accused on different allegations, but petitioner was not nominated in any one of them as an accused---Showing the petitioner as a prosecution witness in one of the said references would not term him as "benamidar’-by any stretch of law---Petitioner, therefore, was neither an accused nor "Benamidar", but was simply a prosecution witness against an accused in the Reference---Lifting of any caution on the Bank account of the petitioner and defreezing the same was directed by High Court in circumstances---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. The State through Prosecutor-General Accountability, NAB, Islamabad v. Babar Ali Kharal PLD 2008 Lah. 347 and Khan Muhammad Mahesar v. National…
🔒
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