Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: In business transaction the petitioner issued a cheque, which was dishonoured. There are nine other FIRs against the petitioner in different Police Stations of similar nature. The petitioner remained proclaimed offender for more than 12 years and involved in commission of a series of identical crimes, therefore, constitutes an exceptional circumstances weighing against grant of bail. The petition is without merits and the same is dismissed with the direction to decide the case expeditiously preferable within a period of two months.

Summary: Legal Context:The central legal question was the constitutional accountability of the elected government in Pakistan, particularly concerning financial transparency and the auditing of government expenditures. This included the examination of the constitutionality of secret service funds and their exemption from audit, in light of Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which pertain to freedom of the press and the right to information.Judgment Summary:Accountability and Democratic Governance:The Court emphasized that the accountability of an elected government is the foundation of democratic governance. It highlighted the importance of ensuring that government finances are used in accordance with constitutional and statutory objectives.Role of the Auditor General:The Court affirmed the constitutional mandate of the Auditor General to audit government revenues and expenditures, including those of statutory/autonomous bodies. The Court made clear that this includes the auditing of secret service funds, previously claimed to be exempt.Constitutional Right to Information:The judgment underscored the public?s constitutional right to access information about government expenditures, referencing Article 19A of the Constitution.Media Commission and Public Funds:The Court discussed the establishment of a Media Commission to investigate the use of public funds for influencing the media, following concerns raised in the petition.Historical Context of Secret Service Funds:The Court delved into the historical background of secret service funds in Pakistan, tracing their origins to British colonial times. It noted the lack of any specific Pakistani law dealing with these funds, apart from the General Financial Rules (GFR).Legal Status of Secret Funds:The Court found that sub-Rule (5) of Rule 37 of the GFR, which exempted actual accounts of secret service expenditure from the jurisdiction of the Auditor General, was unconstitutional. The Court declared that all government expenditures, including secret service funds, are subject to audit.Directions for Auditor General:The Court directed the Auditor General to establish procedures for auditing accounts labeled as ?secret? in a manner that does not compromise their secrecy.Future Considerations:Notices were issued to 19 institutions that claimed their finances/accounts were not subject to audit by the Auditor General, setting a precedent for more stringent scrutiny of government bodies.Recognition of Contributions:The judgment concluded with an appreciation for the contributions of the amicus curiae, Kh. Haris Ahmed Sr. ASC.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's decision in this case significantly underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in government expenditures, reinforcing the constitutional role of the Auditor General and the public?s right to information. It set a legal precedent for the audit of secret service funds and emphasized the need for constitutional compliance in the management of public finances.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.