Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2349 2017 SLD 2349 2017 YLR 1045
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-617 of 2016, decided & hearing on 19-10-2016.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, JUSTICE
Mir Shahzad Ahmed Talpur for Petitioner. Abdul Waheed Bijarani, Special Prosecutor NAB for
Respondent.

ALI AKBER

VS

DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9---Corruption and corrupt practices---Bail, grant of---Allegation against accused was that he entertained sale deed in respect of a property and it was not alleged that accused received illegal gratification---Case of accused was identical to that of co-accused who had already been granted bail---Accused was not expected to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence---Bail was granted accordingly. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, 3 JUSTICE:---.--- Through instant petition, petitioner Ali Akbar seeks post arrest bail in reference No. 07 of 2015 (The State v. Abdul Rehman Kalhoro and others) pending for adjudication before Accountability Court VI, Sindh at Hyderabad. 2. Relevant facts of the reference are that on receipt of complaint from one Lal Chand Malhi against Aziz Rahman, Mukhtiarkar and others regarding illegal mutation in property card (revenue record) of Evacuee Trust Property, a plot measuring 3027-5 sq. yards. An inquiry was authorized, which was subsequently converted into investigation. The investigation revealed that the petitioner served as Sub-Registrar and during his incumbency, he entertained a sale deed in respect of aforesaid property, thus he misused his authority with ulterior motive and criminal intention in violation of section 28 of Registration Act, 1908 as he did not inquire about original CNIC of Vendor. The respondent No. 1 after appraisal of the material placed before him, opined that there is sufficient material to justify the filing of reference, hence reference was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in the reference in hand. He further submitted that violation of section 28 of Registration Act, 1908, as alleged, is not a scheduled offence; that the respondent No. 1 never appreciated the fact and legal position that title document was in the name of vendor, which is sufficient for execution of registered document within the meaning of Registration Act and that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the title document was a forged…
🔒
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