Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2322 2013 SLD 2322 2013 PLD 481
Sindh High Court
Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 38 of 2012, decided on 13th March, 2013
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ
Shahab Sarki, Zulfiqar Ali Langah and Shahnawaz M. Sahito for Appellant. Noor Muhammad Dayo, Special Prosecutor NAB

ABDUL QADIR TAWAKKAL

VS

THE STATE

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 10(d),16A

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 10(d) & 16A---Remission in sentence, entitlement to---Scope---Bar placed by S.10(d) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 on remission in sentence---Retrospective effect---Scope---Accused was arrested in the year 1996 and was initially put to trial before the Special Court constituted under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and at that time he was entitled to pre and post-conviction remissions in sentence---Subsequently after promulgation of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAB Ordinance) case of accused was transferred to Accountability Court constituted under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Accountability Court conducted regular trial of accused and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment of 12 years with a fine---Pleas of accused was that he was arrested and put to trial prior to promulgation of NAB Ordinance, therefore, provisions of S.10(d) of the said Ordinance, which prohibited grant of remissions to convicts, could not be made applicable to him; that on the date of his arrest, he was entitled to pre and post-conviction remissions in sentence in accordance with Jail Rules, therefore such right of his could not be taken away by giving retrospective effect to S.10(d) of NAB Ordinance---Validity---Accused was entitled to pre and post-conviction remissions at the time of his arrest and his trial commenced before insertion of section 10(d) in NAB Ordinance, therefore, his right to remission in accordance with the law had already accrued---Subsequent change in law, without a clear intention to vary such right, did not have the effect of depriving accused of the right which was available to him at the time when the offence was committed and trial commenced---Perusal of S.10(d) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 did not even remotely suggest that it had retrospective effect or that it had the effect of taking away rights that were available to an accused on the date when the crime was registered or trial commenced---Superintendent Jail was directed to allow remissions to the accused in accordance with the Jail…
🔒
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