Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 276 2012 SLD 276 2012 PCRLJ 1317
Peshawar High Court
Ehtesab Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 to 13 of 2006 with Criminal M. No. 16 of 2006, decided on 22nd March, 2012. DATE of hearing: 22nd March, 2012
ATTAULLAH KHAN AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ
Abdul Sattar Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Jamil Khan, D.P.G. for the State.

Mrs. SHAGUFTA SHAHEEN

VS

THE STATE and another

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 12,13(c)

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 12 &13(c)---Power to freeze property---National Accountability Bureau (NAB) issued freezing orders against accused (appellant), and appeal against such order was dismissed by the Accountability Court, which confirmed the freezing order and directed accused to file a fresh objection petition in accordance with S.13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Contention of accused was that freezing order of NAB ceased to exist after 15 days and Accountability Court had misinterpreted section 12(f) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and freezing order had to be confirmed within 15 days---Validity---Case record showed that prosecution had submitted the application for confirmation of freezing order passed by NAB under S.12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, before the Accountability Court, within stipulated period of 15 days---Order-sheets of case indicated that due to one or other reason matter was not finally disposed of and the delay/lapse could not only be attributed to the prosecution rather same was an act of accused as well as of the court---Objection of accused was overruled---Appeal was disposed of, accordingly. Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2009 converted into Writ Petition No.2532 of 2010 and Eh. Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010 distinguished. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 12 &13(c)---Power to freeze property---National Accountability Bureau (NAB) issued freezing orders against accused (appellant), and appeal against such order was dismissed by the Accountability Court, which confirmed the freezing order and directed accused to file a fresh objection petition in accordance with S.13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Contention of prosecution was that Accountability Court had declared the objection petition of accused as premature, as same had been filed before the passing of confirmation order and accused had no cause of action to file an appeal because the right to file objections in accordance with S.13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, had been provided to the accused, and accused should file his fresh…
🔒
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