Summary: (a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950—Section 5(2) read with Section 109 APC—Frivolous litigation and abuse of process—Repeated and baseless allegations of misconduct and torture against public officials, after successive investigations found claims to be false, held to constitute clear abuse of judicial process—Filing of repetitive petitions without fresh evidence is not a legitimate exercise of legal remedy but amounts to vexatious litigation. (b) Review jurisdiction—Scope—Where review petition merely seeks to reargue settled factual controversies without discovery of new evidence or showing any error apparent on record, dismissal by High Court is proper—Reappraisal of evidence is beyond review jurisdiction. (c) Conduct of litigants—Malafide intent—Petitioners’ sudden “pardon” of respondents during hearing considered indicative of bad faith and lack of bona fide prosecution—Such conduct undermines judicial integrity and invites imposition of costs. (d) Judicial process—Sanctity and deterrence—Courts are duty-bound to safeguard process from misuse; frivolous petitions consume public time and obstruct administration of justice—Imposition of exemplary costs justified to deter abuse. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal refused—High Court judgment dated 15-04-2025 upheld—Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000 to be deposited within 30 days.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999) ----S. 9(a)(iii), (vi) & (xii), S. 10 ----Corruption and corrupt practices---- Misuse of authority ---- Essential ingredients ---- Mens rea and actus reus ---- Mere procedural irregularities not constituting offence ---- Conviction of petitioner (Deputy Director (Budget & Finance)/DDO, PTB) by Trial Court and High Court set aside ---- Benefit of doubt extended ---- Held, prosecution failed to prove that petitioner derived illegal gain, facilitated embezzlement, or acted with dishonest intent ---- Departmental inquiries and fact-finding committee exonerated petitioner ---- Prosecution witnesses’ testimonies contradictory and not confidence inspiring ---- Petition converted into appeal and allowed ---- Petitioner acquitted. Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish mens rea (guilty mind) or actus reus (guilty act) against the petitioner. His omissions, at most, amounted to procedural irregularities or administrative lapses and did not qualify as “misuse of authority” under S.9(a)(vi) NAO, 1999. The record revealed absence of evidence of illegal enrichment or undue benefit. Departmental inquiries and final fact-finding reports held cashier Aleem Mehmood solely responsible for embezzlement of PTB funds. Mere procedural improprieties could not form basis for criminal conviction. (b) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999) ----S. 14(d)---- Burden of proof---- Requirement for prosecution to establish a reasonable case of misuse of authority before presumption of guilt can arise against accused---- Held, principle of criminal jurisprudence that initial onus rests upon prosecution not displaced by NAB Ordinance---- Prosecution failed to discharge burden. Court held that the prosecution neither produced wealth statements, bank accounts, assets, or tax documents of petitioner nor proved that he, his family, or associates benefitted from alleged acts. Without evidence of illegal gain or connivance, the presumption of guilt under S.14(d) could not be invoked. (c) Criminal law ----Burden of proof---- Benefit of doubt ---- Petitioner exonerated where prosecution case based on conjectures, contradictions, and unsupported allegations ---- Held, benefit of doubt always goes to accused if reasonable doubt arises regarding prosecution’s case. Court emphasized that since contradictions existed in depositions of prosecution witnesses and primary responsibility for embezzlement was established against cashier A.M, the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. Cited Cases Wahid Bakhsh Baloch v. The State 2014 SCMR 985 M. Anwar Saifullah Khan v. State PLD 2002 Lahore 458 The State and others v. M. Idrees Ghauri and others 2008 SCMR 1118 Mansur-ul-Haque’s case PLD 2008 SC 166 The State v. Anwar Saifullah Khan PLD 2016 SC 276 Disposition Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and High Court set aside. Petitioner Sardar Hussain acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Art. 10-A--- Right to fair trial---Scope---Held, that in criminal proceedings involving multiple accused persons and overlapping FIRs, Anti-Terrorism and Trial Courts must ensure the accused’s access to fair trial under Art. 10-A, including timely provision of case records, exemption from personal appearance where legally warranted, and attention to logistical challenges due to concurrent proceedings. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1)--- Bail---Prohibitory clause---Scope---Interpretation of punishment range---Held, for purposes of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., the maximum punishment prescribed under the statute is to be considered in determining application of the prohibitory clause; courts cannot base decisions on speculative minimum sentencing or sentencing guidelines. Previous contrary interpretation in Jamal-ud-Din v. State (2012 SCMR 573) and Khuda Bux v. State (2010 SCMR 1160) clarified and departed from. [Ref: Socha Gul v. State (2015 SCMR 1077), ANF v. Qasim Ali (2019 SCMR 1928)] (c) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010) ----Ss. 3 & 4--- Money laundering---Bail---Petitioners accused of laundering proceeds of crime through purchase of property and vehicle---Petitioner No. 1 alleged to have acted as frontman and issued cheque for Rs.3.5 million---Cheque not encashed and property documents indicated role of a property dealer---Held, case against both petitioners fell under “further inquiry” per S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---All predicate offences under FIRs No.03, 05, and 11/2024 arose after the acquisition of properties mentioned in FIR No.02/2024---Prosecution’s reliance on documents already in possession and lack of tampering risk justified grant of post-arrest bail. (d) Interpretation of Statutes ----Statutory construction--- “Punishable” under S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Held, the term “punishable” in prohibitory clause must be interpreted in light of maximum sentence prescribed in law, not minimum threshold---Any contrary approach amounts to prejudging the merits and usurping trial court’s discretion on sentencing. (e) Bail ----Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Predicate offences---Held, where accused has already secured bail in all predicate offences from which alleged proceeds of crime were generated, new case under AMLA, based on same allegations, falls within scope of further inquiry---Interim findings or suspicion do not justify continued incarceration absent concrete proof of illegal gains. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed. Petitioners admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,000,000/- each with two sureties to satisfaction of trial court.

Summary: ''When public servant being holder/custodian of official record, commits forgery/fraud, then it is not easy to find out direct evidence because before committing the offence, he makes planning, manages circumstance/material and tries his level best to conceal/destroy the incriminating evidence therefore relevant material in the form of documents/transactions can be given due weight while appreciating the evidence and approach must be inquisitorial instead of adversarial while dealing such cases.'' ---- The appellants were convicted by the trial court on charges of forgery, cheating, and criminal misconduct, stemming from a complaint alleging the creation of forged property records. The case involved allegations that the accused, in collusion with others, prepared and relied upon a fraudulent document (Fard Jamabandi) to deceive the complainant regarding a sale of two plots of land. The complainant claimed to have paid a substantial amount as earnest money based on a forged agreement. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether one appellant, as a party to the agreement, could be held liable for misrepresentation and forgery related to the sale of land. ------- 2) Whether the other appellant, acting in an official capacity, deliberately recorded unauthorized and fraudulent entries in official records to facilitate the alleged scheme. ------- 3) Whether the prosecution successfully established the charges based on documentary and oral evidence. ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court acquitted one appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that he presented himself as the sole owner of the land in question. The evidence, including the agreement, indicated that the complainant was aware of the appellant's limited ownership, and any remedy should have been pursued in a civil court for specific performance. Therefore, the court set aside his conviction and discharged his surety. However, the court upheld the conviction of the second appellant, concluding that he fraudulently entered incomplete and unauthorized records, which were not approved by any competent revenue officer. This was deemed a clear breach of duty and an abuse of authority. The court confirmed the sentences under the relevant sections of the penal code and anti-corruption laws. ------- Citations/Precedents: PLD 2021 SC 715 - Establishing the principle that secondary evidence must be properly justified when primary evidence is not produced. 1995 SCMR 1237 - Addressing the admissibility of secondary evidence in the absence of primary documents. 1988 CLC 1812 - Asserting that an unattested mutation by an official carries no significance in the eyes of the law. The appeal was partially allowed, resulting in the acquittal of one appellant and the dismissal of the other’s appeal.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an employee of a government corporation, was accused of embezzling Rs. 448,604. He was tried by an Anti-Corruption Court, convicted under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to three years in prison with fines of Rs. 250,000 for each offense. The petitioner appealed the decision to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal. He then petitioned the Supreme Court, admitting that he had deposited the embezzled amount in the State exchequer and requesting a reduction in his sentence due to his wife’s illness and other personal hardships. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s repayment of the embezzled amount warrants a reduction in his sentence. -----2- Whether the petitioner’s personal circumstances, such as his wife’s illness, justify leniency in sentencing. -----3- Whether the conviction under Section 409 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, should be upheld. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Reduction of Sentence: The Supreme Court acknowledged that although the petitioner could not claim a reduction of sentence as a matter of right, his repayment of the embezzled amount and his willingness to resolve the matter without further contestation indicated a sincere intention to make amends. Considering the petitioner’s efforts and his personal circumstances, the court decided to reduce his sentence. --Personal Circumstances: The court took into account the petitioner’s family situation, particularly his wife’s serious illness, which required his support. His decision to not further contest the case showed his desire to end the proceedings and return to his family, which was seen as a mitigating factor. --Upholding of Conviction: While the petitioner’s conviction under Section 409 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld, the court reduced the sentences in both offenses to the time already served. Additionally, the fines were significantly reduced from Rs. 250,000 to Rs. 40,000 under Section 409 PPC and from Rs. 250,000 to Rs. 10,000 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was ordered to serve additional short imprisonment terms if he failed to pay the reduced fines. -----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Penal Code, Section 409 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), Section 382-B

Summary: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that FIRs cannot be quashed once a challan has been filed, affirming the limited scope for judicial intervention during the investigative process. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi emphasized that "quashment of FIR during investigation tantamounts to throttling the investigation, which is not permissible in law," underlining that such judicial powers are reserved for truly exceptional cases. ------ - Key Points of the Judgment include: ------ 1) Judicial and Investigative Roles Are Distinct: Justice Rizvi highlighted the complementary, non-overlapping roles of the judiciary and law enforcement, stating that law enforcement is obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate cognizable offences. Courts should not interfere with this duty unless the case is extraordinary. ------ 2) Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings: The judgment clarified that a concurrent civil dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings. Justice Rizvi referenced precedent, stating that "a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits, regardless of any parallel civil matters." Criminal and civil cases can coexist and be adjudicated independently. ------ 3) Grounds for Quashment Must Be Exceptional: FIR quashment is only permissible if there is clear evidence of misuse of legal authority or if the allegations lack legal basis. Justice Rizvi noted that concerns over conviction probability should be handled within trial proceedings and not preempt the investigation. ----- 4) No Premature Judicial Intervention: The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR should not impede the police's statutory role in evidence gathering. Interference should be limited to cases where allegations unequivocally indicate no offence or a clear abuse of process. ------ This case involves Civil Petitions No. 671-L and 672-L of 2017, where the State challenged the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench’s decision to quash FIR No. 58/2012. This FIR, registered on August 2, 2012, alleged that the respondents fraudulently transferred significant state land in Tehsil Jalalpur to private persons using forged orders from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. An inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) revealed irregularities, leading to FIR registration. However, the respondents contended that the FIR was baseless and filed with malafide intent, ultimately convincing the High Court to quash it. ------Issues ------1) Whether the High Court erred in quashing an FIR involving alleged fraudulent land transfers under Article 199 of the Constitution. ------2) Whether the existence of a civil dispute negates the necessity for criminal proceedings. ------3) Whether the High Court’s quashing of the FIR was justified based on the improbability of conviction. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, finding that quashing the FIR was improper. Key points of reasoning include: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash FIRs is limited to cases where the FIR is evidently without legal basis or constitutes an abuse of legal authority. Criminal proceedings should not be prematurely quashed, especially when material evidence supports a cognizable offense. The existence of a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability; both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently if the facts disclose a criminal offense. Probable conviction or acquittal is a matter for trial courts to decide, and without strong evidence of malafide intent by investigative authorities, the FIR should not have been quashed at this stage. ------Citations/Precedents Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others (PLD 2009 SC 102) – On the complementary roles of judiciary and police and the conditions under which an FIR may be quashed. FIA, Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) – Reaffirming the High Court’s power to quash FIRs when the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense. Seema Fareed and Others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) – Civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings if criminal liability is indicated. Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 5041) – Guidelines on judicial restraint in staying investigations and quashing FIRs in India. Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246), Amir Jamal v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq (2011 SCMR 1023), Fida Hussain v. Mst Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990) – High Court’s limited scope under Article 199 in cases requiring factual determinations. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby reinstating the FIR for investigation and trial.

Summary: Background: The case stems from a dispute over the alleged fraudulent transfer of state land located in Tehsil Jalalpur, Punjab, through fabricated orders purportedly issued in 1993 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This land, totaling 7,062 Kanals and 11 Marlas, was transferred via fraudulent mutations in 1998, based on allegedly forged documents prepared by certain revenue officials. An inquiry confirmed the illegality of these transactions, leading to the registration of FIR No. 58/2012. The respondents sought and obtained relief from the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which quashed the FIR on the grounds that it was a civil matter and lacked the probability of conviction. The State then challenged this order, arguing that the FIR should not have been quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution. -----Issues: 1- Can an FIR be quashed on the grounds of a civil dispute between the parties? -----2- Does the existence of a civil stay order impact the validity of criminal proceedings under the Anti-Corruption Act? -----3- Is the probability of conviction a valid basis for quashing an FIR? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Court held that: Criminal and civil proceedings can coexist, and a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability if a cognizable offense is indicated. The FIR cannot be quashed solely due to the existence of a related civil dispute. The stay order in the civil proceedings did not prohibit the authorities from conducting an inquiry or registering an FIR as it was meant to prevent coercive actions but did not restrict the legal obligation to investigate a cognizable offense. The potential for conviction is a matter for the trial court to assess and is not a sufficient ground to quash the FIR preemptively, as this would impede due process. High Court intervention to quash an FIR is reserved for cases where the registration of the FIR is evidently a misuse of authority or legally unjustified. Based on these findings, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIR. -----Citations/Precedents Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others (PLD 2009 SC 102) FIA, Director General FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) Seema Fareed and Others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (AIR 2021 SC 5041) Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another (2023 SCMR 246) Amir Jamal and others v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq and others (2011 SCMR 1023) Fida Hussain v. Mst Saiqa and others (2011 SCMR 1990)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)—Grant and cancellation of pre-arrest bail—Principles—Misapplication of judicial discretion— Respondent, a former Medical Superintendent, was granted pre-arrest bail by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption in a case involving alleged embezzlement of hospital funds earmarked for poor patients—Held, pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy rooted in equity and may only be granted upon a showing of malice, ulterior motive, or risk of irreparable harm—Trial court granted bail without addressing whether a prima facie case existed or considering the nature of the allegations—Such omission constituted gross misapplication of judicial discretion—Where charges are based on documentary evidence and directly implicate the accused, judicial protection is not warranted unless supported by exceptional circumstances. Cited Cases: • Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State 2020 SCMR 249 • Hidayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown PLD 1949 Lahore 21 • Saeed Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 1997 • Aurangzeb v. Muhammad Yaqoob 2022 PCr.LJ 1047 (b) Gilgit-Baltistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Act, 2019—Non-compliance with statutory requirements—Effect— Accused alleged that FIR was registered in violation of S.8 of the GB Anti-Corruption Act and that he was not originally named by the complainant—Held, registration of FIR followed a formal inquiry assigning responsibility to the respondent along with co-accused—FIR directly charged respondent in his capacity as Medical Superintendent—Allegation of false implication was without substance—Where public funds are involved and official capacity is misused, role of the accused must be examined through proper custodial investigation—Bail granted in disregard of statutory framework liable to be set aside. (c) Criminal Trial—Pre-arrest bail—Misleading court regarding cooperation of accused—Duty of trial court— Trial court granted bail partly on ground that prosecution admitted respondent’s cooperation—Held, such attribution to Prosecutor and Investigating Officer was factually incorrect and not supported by record—Trial court failed to record their statements or verify the claim—Bail order based on unsupported assumption rendered invalid—Courts must verify critical assertions, especially in corruption cases involving public office. Principle: Judicial orders must be based on record and verified facts; courts should not speculate on cooperation without recording evidence. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497(5) & 561-A—Scope of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction—Improper exercise of discretion by trial court— High Court converted petition under S.497(5), Cr.P.C. into criminal revision and set aside pre-arrest bail order—Held, judicial protection extended on irrelevant and non-legal grounds amounts to abuse of discretion—Such orders, if sustained, create dangerous precedent and erode the standard of justice—High Court is empowered to intervene where trial court’s order is contrary to established legal principles. Order of trial court set aside; pre-arrest bail withdrawn. Revision allowed.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –----S. 497(2)---Bail---Further inquiry---Accused implicated in corruption and embezzlement case---Primary liability attributed to higher-ranking officials, including the Medical Superintendent of City Hospital Gilgit, who had already been granted bail---Petitioner, a store-keeper, was alleged to have played a secondary role, but no specific amount of embezzlement was attributed to him---Complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of four years, raising doubts about its veracity---Complainant appeared in court and disowned allegations against the petitioner---Investigation was complete, and all relevant documentary evidence was secured, eliminating any risk of tampering---Petitioner's role required further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C---Bail granted on the principle that grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) –----S. 409---Criminal breach of trust by a public servant---Prohibitory clause---Applicability---Accused store-keeper charged under multiple offenses, including Section 409, P.P.C., which falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C---However, no direct evidence established that the petitioner misappropriated government funds---Main co-accused, including the Medical Superintendent and contractor, had been granted bail, attracting the rule of consistency in favor of the petitioner---Court found no exceptional circumstances to deny bail solely based on Section 409, P.P.C.Cited Case: Rule of Consistency(c) Anti-Corruption Laws –----S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)---Bail considerations---Accused implicated in corruption case without direct evidence linking him to financial misappropriation---Primary responsibility for financial transactions rested with higher officials, not the store-keeper---No evidence showed that the accused personally benefited from alleged embezzlement---Long delay in lodging FIR and selective prosecution raised concerns of mala fide intent---Bail granted on grounds of fairness and absence of strong incriminating material.(d) Criminal Procedure-------Bail---Delay in trial---Petitioner had remained in custody for several months with no imminent commencement of trial---Prosecution admitted that the accused was no longer required for further investigation---Court emphasized that concession of bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment and that prolonged detention without trial violates principles of justice---Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,000,000/- with two local sureties.Disposition: Bail granted; accused released from custody subject to conditions.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 17/2023 dated 19.12.2023, registered under sections 467/468, 471/477-A, 34/409-APC and 5(2) PCA at Police Station Anti Corruption Muzaffarabad. The petitioner argued that an earlier FIR No. 153/2020 had already been registered regarding the same occurrence and facts, making the subsequent FIR unjustified. ----Issues: 1- Whether the registration of a subsequent FIR No. 17/2023 for the same occurrence is justified. 2- Whether local police have jurisdiction to investigate public servants involved in scheduled offences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Justification for Subsequent FIR: The court found that the two FIRs were distinct in nature and scope. The first FIR No. 153/2020 was registered against private persons by local police, while the second FIR No. 17/2023 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment against public servants after an inquiry revealed their involvement in fraud and corruption. The court held that the Anti-Corruption Establishment is competent to investigate public servants in scheduled offences, which local police cannot do. The second FIR was thus justified and necessary for the proper investigation of the offences involving public servants. --Jurisdiction of Local Police: The court reiterated that local police do not have jurisdiction to register or investigate cases against public servants in scheduled offences. Such investigations fall within the exclusive purview of the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Citing precedents (PLJ 1998 Lahore 1651, PLJ 2018 AJK 105, and 2000 UC 580), the court emphasized that the Anti-Corruption Establishment was the appropriate authority to handle the investigation against the public servants involved in this case. The petition to quash FIR No. 17/2023 was dismissed, upholding the registration of the FIR by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The court found that there was no illegality in the registration of the second FIR as it was necessary to investigate the involvement of public servants in the alleged offences. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 1998 Lahore 1651 PLJ 2018 AJK 105 2000 UC 580