Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1593 2007 SLD 1593 2007 PLD 243
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition Nos. 2361 and 2450 of 2005, decision dated: 21st August, 2006
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, C.J., ABDUL HAMID DOGAR AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (in C.P.No. 2361 of 2005). Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record No. 1 (in C.P.No. 2361 of 2005). Aitzaz Ahsan,

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others

VS

RAHEEL RASHID and others

Law:

Section:

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 18 & 31-D---Reference from Governor State Bank---Beneficiary of defaulted loan---National Accountability Bureau and Accountability Court---Jurisdiction---Initial reference from Governor State Bank was against four accused who obtained loan and wilfully defaulted---After investigation, National Accountability Bureau included two more accused in the reference being the beneficiaries or the defaulted amount, whose names were not included in the reference from Governor State Bank---Proceedings before Accountability Court, were assailed by one of the beneficiary accused, before High Court, on the ground that as his name was not included in the Reference of Governor State Bank, therefore, National Accountability Bureau as well as the Court did not have any jurisdiction to proceed against him---High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction allowed the. petition and released the beneficiary accused---Validity---Provision of S.31-D of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, only related to imprudent loans, defaulted loans or rescheduled loans---Nothing was available on record from which it could be inferred that beneficiary accused conspired with loanee accused at the time of obtaining loan or alleged wilful default or that he acquired assets from the money received from defaulted company or its directors---High Court erred in law while holding that National Accountability Bureau or Accountability Court had no authority or power to proceed against the beneficiary accused without reference from Governor State Bank---Sanction under S.31-D of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was necessary only against loanee accused but beneficiary accused was not a direct loanee, therefore, sanction of Governor State Bank was not required---High Court also erred in holding that Accountability Court could not proceed against beneficiary accused unless a reference was made by Governor State Bank---Judgment of High Court to the extent of its jurisdiction was not sustainable in the eyes of law---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the of High Court---Supreme Court…
🔒
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