| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3219 2019 SLD 3219 2019 PLJ 583 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. As. No. 21-P, 22-P & 23-P of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 29.04.2019. (On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, Dated 22.03.2012 passed in Crl. A. Nos. 11, 12 & 13 with Cr. M. Nos. 16, 17 & 18 of 2006)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan, ASC (in all cases).
Respondent(s) by: Syed Azeem Dar, Addl. PGA (in all cases).
Crl. As. No. 21-P, 22-P & 23-P of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 29.04.2019. (On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, Dated 22.03.2012 passed in Crl. A. Nos. 11, 12 & 13 with Cr. M. Nos. 16, 17 & 18 of 2006)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan, ASC (in all cases).
Respondent(s) by: Syed Azeem Dar, Addl. PGA (in all cases).
MRS. SHAGUFTA SHAHEEN, ETC.
VS
STATE THR. D.G., NAB, KPK & ANOTHER
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 12,12(c)(f)(iv),13,16,18
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10A
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999)-- ----Ss. 12, 13, 16 & 18--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Charge of corruption--Freezing of property--Application for confirmation of order--Dismissal of objections--Time frame--Appeal before High Court--Dismissed--Right to fair trial--Challenge to--There is no timeframe under statute for Court to decide application for confirmation, except general urgency expressed in preamble and expeditiousness underlined in conducting trials u/S. 16 and carrying out investigation u/S. 18 of Ordinance--It is indisputable that Court must decide applications/objections under Sections 12 and 13 of Ordinance at earliest--Section 12(f) of Ordinance provides that if order of freezing has been passed it shall remain operative until final disposal of case by Court--Application for confirmation of Order passes for a "case" under Section 12(f) and, therefore, Order shall remain operative till application for confirmation is decided by Court--Before parting with it is noticed with concern that matter of confirmation of Order of freezing of properties was decided after a considerable period of time and reference against appellants filed in year 2007 is still pending--Such inordinate delays are inconsistent with spirit and theme of Ordinance, which mandates that cases must be decided swiftly--This urgency is repeatedly underlined in preamble and Sections 16 and 18 of Ordinance--Court, as a neutral arbiter, must not lose sight of fact that long delays in deciding matters does not sit well with right to fair trial and due process guaranteed as a fundamental right u/A. 10A of Constitution--Appeals were dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.- Through this consolidated judgment, the titled appeals are decided as they raise common question of law and facts. 2. Brief facts of the case are the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), during investigation into the matter of the appellants on the charge of corruption and corrupt practices passed an order for freezing the properties of the appellants on 14.10.2003 ("Order") under Section 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ("Ordinance"). The…
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