Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2944 2024 SLD 2944 2024 SCMR 880
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Complaints Nos. 586, 589, 592, 595, 596, 597, 600, 601 and609 of 2023/SJC, decided on 4th March, 2024.Dates ofhearing: 27th October, 20th, 21st, 22nd November, 14thDecember of 2023, 11th January, 15th, 16th, 29th Februaryand 1st March, 2024.
PRESENT: QAZI FAEZ ISA, CJP, SCP, CHAIRMAN, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUDGE, SCP, MEMBER-I, SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUDGE, SCP, MEMBER-II, MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, CJ, LHC, MEMBER-III AND NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, CJ, HCB, MEMBER-IV

IN RE: JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUDGE, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 209(5)(b) & 209(6)---Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Arts. II, III, IV & VI---Complaints filed before the Supreme Judicial Council ( SJC ) against a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, who resigned during pendency of the proceedings before the SJC---Misconduct---Violation of the Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts---Removal from the office of Judge---Purchase of properties and construction raised thereon without having sufficient declared income/money in income tax returns/wealth statement---Purchase of property at half its market price to deprive minor co-owners of their share in the property---Misuse of office to exercise influence over government officials---Grant of undue favours to a businessman to buy properties from him at heavily discounted prices---Judge in question ( the accused ) bought a property knowing that it was co-owned by children, and that without a Guardian Court granting permission to sell it he could not have bought it---Accused did not produce any notice published in any newspaper, which prudent buyers do by inviting public objections by publishing the same in prominent newspapers---Accused also elected not to testify, and by not doing so an adverse presumption could be drawn against him---Accused did not disclose his tax filings nor came forward to testify; he also did not disclose how much he had earned over the years and/or the income tax paid thereon---It was also not stated when he started filing tax returns and paying income tax---Since the accused did not make the requisite disclosure nor testified the SJC was not in a position to determine whether or not he had sufficient income tax paid/declared money to justify the purchase of the properties bought by him---A property developer through his company, paid Rupees fifty million to the seller as portion of the sale consideration for a property bought by the accused---A judge accepting such largesse from a property developer, who claimed that he hardly knew the accused-Judge, raised very serious questions of propriety---Since no viable explanation for paying the said fifty…
🔒
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