| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2347 2023 SLD 2347 2023 SCMR 1914 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 806 of 2022 and Criminal Petition No.689 of 2022, decided on 17th November, 2022. (Against the order dated 28.4.2022 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Criminal Appeals Nos.50/2020, 51/2020, 30/2020 and Criminal Appeal
Present: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Ayesha A. Malik and Athar Minallah, JJ
Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 689 of 2022). Muhammad Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 806 of 2022). Sattar Muhammad Awan, D.P.G., NAB for the
Criminal Petition No. 806 of 2022 and Criminal Petition No.689 of 2022, decided on 17th November, 2022. (Against the order dated 28.4.2022 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Criminal Appeals Nos.50/2020, 51/2020, 30/2020 and Criminal Appeal
Present: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Ayesha A. Malik and Athar Minallah, JJ
Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 689 of 2022). Muhammad Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 806 of 2022). Sattar Muhammad Awan, D.P.G., NAB for the
Col. (Retd.) SUBH SADIQ MALIK and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad---Respondent
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 31
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 31
National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 31---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---National Accountability Bureau (NAB)---Investigating Officer---Strictures recorded by the High Court, expunction of---Petitioners (Director General and Assistant Director in NAB) were not arrayed as parties to the appeal before the High Court, nor were they put to notice before recording the (adverse) observations against them---High Court may have been justified in highlighting the flaws and shortcomings, or even grave neglect in the investigations carried out by NAB, but the strong observations against the petitioners ought to have been avoided because of the profound consequences relating to their right to a fair trial in case of initiation of departmental proceedings or under section 31 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ('Ordinance of 1999')---Strictures recorded by a High Court against an employed person who is subject to disciplinary proceedings are likely to prejudice the latter's right to a fair trial---Strictures recorded by the High Court in the case in hand are in the nature of condemning the petitioners unheard since they were not served with any notice nor did they have an opportunity to put up a defence---High Court had highlighted the shortcomings and grave flaws relating to the manner in which the investigations had been conducted---Judicial precaution and propriety required restraint to have been shown by the High Court in recording of observations regarding the conduct, behavior and integrity of the petitioners---Decision whether to proceed against the petitioners should have been left to the competent authority of the NAB because there was no reason to presume that the latter, after taking into consideration the observations made by the High Court regarding the investigations, would not have acted in accordance with law---Strictures recorded by the High Court against the petitioners, therefore, infringed their right to a fair trial and are thus not sustainable---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed to the extent of expunging the strictures recorded against the petitioners in the impugned judgment.…
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