| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1370 2022 SLD 1370 2022 PCRLJ 941 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-4519 of 2019, decision dated: 8th January, 2021.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO AND SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, JJ
Rasheed A. Rizvi along with Tahmasp R. Rizvi and Shoaib Khatian for Petitioners. Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor NAB. Mukesh Kumar Khatri, Assistant Attorney General.
C.P. No. D-4519 of 2019, decision dated: 8th January, 2021.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO AND SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, JJ
Rasheed A. Rizvi along with Tahmasp R. Rizvi and Shoaib Khatian for Petitioners. Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor NAB. Mukesh Kumar Khatri, Assistant Attorney General.
ABBAS HAIDER NAQVI and anothers
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 9(a)(vi)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 265-K,403
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 13,199
National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 9(a)(vi)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-K , 403---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 13 , 199---Constitutional petition--- Maintainability--- Quashing of proceedings---Fag end of trial---Double jeopardy---Show cause notice, proceedings of---Scopes were facing trial who sought quashing of proceedings against them at the stage when cross examination on investigating officer as last prosecution witness was under process---Plea raised by petitioners was that penalty in the matter had already been imposed against proceedings initiated under show cause notice therefore, trial was a double jeopardy---Validity---Case of prosecution was almost over and at such stage expressing opinion into merits of the case especially based on evidence that too under discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction was not only to prejudice case of parties but was likely to deprive both of them an appellate forum which otherwise in the wake of final decision by Trial Court was available to aggrieved partys were not the only accused in reference but were arraigned therein along with other accused persons---Nature of allegations and overlapping role of each accused in causing effect leading to alleged loss to national exchequer was such that separating attribution to one accused from the other was not possible without undermining the whole prosecution case---Such approach would amount to resolving controversy in piecemeal which had never been the scheme of law---Commission of any offence by petitioners could only be settled after deep and at minuscule level examination of evidence---Such exercise was not permissible under Constitutional jurisdiction and was tantamount to stretching things beyond prescribed limits---Penalty imposed under show cause notice was not outcome of any proceedings held in trial and in respect of same offence by competent Court of law to attract principle of double jeopardy enshrined under Art. 13 of the Constitution and S. 403, Cr.P.C.---Proceedings in terms of show cause notice were not equal to the ones held in trial which were basically meant to find out guilt or otherwise of an…
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