Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2111 2014 SLD 2111 2014 CLD 873
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.304 of 2012, decision dated: 11-02-2014.
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JJ
Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Iftikhar-ud-Din Riaz, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record, Muzaffar A. Mirza, Director Law SECP and Ibrar Saeed, Law Officer, SECP for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD NADEEM ANWARvs

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.403---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 13(a) & 185(3)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 230(7), 234(6) & 282-K---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss. 9, 10 & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409 & 109---Double jeopardy, principle of--- Scope--- Offences committed in one go but punishable under two separate and distinct enactments---Chief Executive Officer of bank (i.e. accused) allegedly obtained loan facilities fraudulently, falsified bank records, misappropriated funds of bank and his company and also committed corrupt practices---Criminal complaint was filed against accused by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) before the High Court---Reference was also filed against accused before National Accountability Bureau (NAB)---Criminal complaint and NAB reference were based on the same acts/omissions by accused---Accused was convicted under the NAB reference for corruption and corrupt practices---Plea of accused that elements of the criminal complaint filed by SECP and NAB reference were identical; that when he was convicted in the NAB reference, he could not be convicted twice for the same acts and omissions in the criminal complaint before the High Court---Validity---Provisions of Ss. 230(7), 234(6) & 282-K of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and Ss. 9, 10 & 11 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 were different enactments of law having different procedure and forum for initiating proceedings thereunder---Although both sets of offences had been committed by the accused in one go, however accused acted in such a manner which constituted offences punishable under two separate and distinct laws, i.e. one under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and the other under the Companies Ordinance, 1984--- Despite the fact that the two separate prosecutions of accused arose out of the same incident or that some of the facts in the two prosecutions were common, the offences committed by accused under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 were quite different from the offences committed by him under the 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