| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2037 2023 SLD 2037 = 2023 PLD 238 |
Write Petition No. 2908 of 2014, decided on 4th May, 2023.
Before Aamer Farooq, C.J. and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, J
Abdul Majid v. Mst. Zubeda Begum 2007 SCMR 866 and Hafiz Muhammad Sharaf-ud-Din v. District Judge, Khushab 2015 MLD 1081 rel. Abid Jalil for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafay Maqsood, Special Prosecutor, NAB and Zahid Usman, A.D./I.O., NAB for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2023.
TANVIR HUSSAIN MANJI---Petitioner
VERSUS
NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman and another--Respondents
Law: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)
Section: 25(b) , 16(3) , 199
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---
----S. 25(b)---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Plea bargain---Incidental charges---Scope---Undue influence---Proof---Petitioner accused before National Accountability Bureau (NAB) who entered into plea bargain with NAB but assailed imposition of 15% incidental charges over and above the liability so determined---Validity---National Accountability Bureau had no right to demand such incidental charges either in law or equity---Petitioner while he was deprived of his freedom agreed to the same which indicated use of undue influence---Such use of authority resulted in an unfair advantage over the other---National Accountability Bureau obtained an unfair advantage over the petitioner by extracting an amount from him not otherwise due by using its dominant position over petitioner---"Incidental charges" as part of plea bargain were unconscionable---According to section 16 (3) of Contract Act, 1872, burden of proof that contract was not induced by undue influence was on the person who was in a position to dominate the will of another when he entered into contract with such person and where transaction had appeared to be unconscionable--National Accountability Bureau was unable to explain what incidental charges, if any, were incurred in respect of a plea bargain---Law did not authorize NAB to charge the same and NAB had failed to discharge its burden of proof---Public functionaries were expected to act fairly and justly and could not be allowed to profit from predicament of a person in their custody---High Court condoned delay in invoking Constitutional jurisdiction by petitioner---In absence of law and/or expenses incurred by NAB, the clause of plea bargain whereby petitioner agreed to pay incidental charges was unenforceable for lack of free consent---High Court declared that such clause of plea bargain entered into by petitioner was void to the extent of 15% incidental charges and the same could not be recovered from petitioner---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Asghar Ali v. National Accountability Bureau 2016 PCr.LJ 477; Haji Khan