| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1148 2004 SLD 1148 2004 SCMR 1229 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 101 to 103 of 2003, decision dated: 16-01-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17 2 2003 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, passed in Ehtesab Appeals Nos.41, 42 and 49 of 2001)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan and Irfan Qadir, Prosecutor General NAB for
Respondents
Criminal Petitions Nos. 101 to 103 of 2003, decision dated: 16-01-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17 2 2003 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, passed in Ehtesab Appeals Nos.41, 42 and 49 of 2001)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan and Irfan Qadir, Prosecutor General NAB for
Respondents
Dr. MUHAMMAD ANWAR KURD
VS
THE STATE and others
Law:
Section:
National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) --Ss. 25 & 15 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3), 4, 9, 12, 13 & 25 Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, inter alia the points that what exactly the term "plea bargaining" stands for, what should be its exact import and significance, does it amount to "plead guilty" for the alleged offences and empowers the Accountability Court to convict and sentence the incumbent concerned by absolving the prosecution from its bounden duty to substantiate the accusation by producing cogent and concrete evidence; that whether the "plea ¬bargaining" amounts to "complete discharge of the accused persons" and no consequential penalty by virtue of amendment subsequently carried out in section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999; could have been imposed upon the petitioners that whether the dictum as laid down in case titled Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted when the alleged ill gotten gains were deposited by the petitioners in favour of the Chairman of the Bureau prior to the announcement of the said ; that whether any loss had been accrued to the Government merely by tendering the medical opinion by the legally constituted Medical Board wherein the accused were also members and payment was made by Accountant General Office to the Government employees in accordance with rules and on the basis of length of their service; that whether the concept of "deeming conviction" is alien to the criminal administration of justice in Pakistan and was in violation of provisions as contained in Articles 4, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 25 of the Constitution which could not have been made applicable in the case of petitioners who were not charged for any specific offence and the notional conviction as provided under section 10 of the Ordinance did not entail the penal consequences of "deeming clause" and the Accountability Court should have confined itself to the question of acceptance and rejection. of "plea bargaining"; that whether the approval for acceptance of "plea bargaining" could have been sought for from the Accountability…
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