| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3567 2025 SLD 3567 = 2025 SCMR 1041 |
Civil Petition No. 256-K of 2024, decided on 18th March, 2025. (Against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad in Civil Petition No. D-1077 of 2023).
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ
Shaukat Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Sattar Mehmood Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Syed Meeral Shah, Special Prosecutor and Irfan Ali, I.O/Deputy Director for the NAB. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2025.
AHSAN ALI DAWACH ---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE through Chairman NAB and others ---Respondents
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Section: 516A
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 12,13,17
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 516-A---Superdari---Interim custody of vehicle---Effect---Permitting interim custody of vehicle on Superdari neither amounts to prejudice the trial nor gives a clean chit to accused, nor does it relieve or exempt owner / recipient of custody from pending legal proceedings---Duration of interim custody may continue subject to the bond and surety till the final fate of the case---Till then the person allowed interim custody is duty-bound under law to attend, participate and produce the vehicle as and when directed by Court.
(b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---
----Ss. 12, 13 & 17---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A---Freezing of vehicle---Superdari---Interim custody, grant of---Non-filing of objections--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Applicability---Petitioner / accused was aggrieved of refusal to grant interim custody of vehicle in question which was frozen under section 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Accountability Court---High Court declined to give interim custody of the vehicle as the accused had not filed any objection against freezing order---Validity--Accused never endeavored to challenge freezing order, rather he accepted it without demur but he applied for custody of vehicle within the sphere of freezing order (which was confined to an embargo against transfer of vehicle only)---There was no demonstrable restriction or prohibition in law that if an accused or aggrieved person had failed to lodge a claim or objection against freezing order in terms of Section 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, they would be deprived and perpetually or unremittingly not be able to apply for interim custody of vehicle / property---There is no inconsistency or incongruity between section 516-A, Cr.P.C. and provision of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---There is no specific provision for releasing custody of vehicle embedded in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and there are also no absolute restrictions against doing so---Aid and assistance may be taken by Courts from general provisions of Cr.P.C., particularly when the letter of law indubitably makes it clear that provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings unless there is anything inconsistent with the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and allowed interim custody of vehicle in question on Superdari, in terms of Section 516-A, Cr.P.C.---Appeal was allowed.
Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry v. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 SC 413; Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v. Government of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 630; Amanullah Khan v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1990 SC 1092; Abid Hasan v. PIAC 2005 SCMR 25 and Khalid Humayun v. The NAB through DG Quetta and others PLD 2017 SC 194 ref.