Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.9C CNSAAppreciation of evidence,contradictory statement,prosecution failed to prove the case,benefit of doubt(Acquitted)

Summary: (a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. 32 & 33-E---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.70---Fine, recovery of---Imprisonment in lieuof fine---Effect---Undergoing imprisonment, awarded in default of payment of fine, does notoperate as discharge or satisfaction of order of payment of fine---In spite of undergoingimprisonment in default of payment of fine, liability of offender is still there and that could beenforced for special reasons to be recorded in writing---In special cases of corruption,misappropriation and embezzlement of public money, fine is imposed just to recover embezzledamount/public money and to compensate loses caused by offender to State exchequer.Ahmed Ali Siddiqui v. Sargodha Central Cooperative Bank Limited 1989 SCMR 824 rel.(b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------S. 33-E---Recovery of fine---Limitation---Application under S. 33-E of NationalAccountability Ordinance, 1999, moved by NAB after dismissal of appeal was not barred bylimitation.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 404 & 439---"Appeal" and "revision"---Distinction---Appeal is continuation of originalproceedings before higher forum for testing soundness of decision of lower court---Remedy ofrevision is discretionary and revisional Court has to proceed under certain limitations.(d) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------S. 33-E---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 80---Fine, recovery of---Procedure---Provision of S.80 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which authorizes anystatutory body to recover any amount as arrears of land revenue, can be invoked subject tocondition that dues should be determined, affixed and ascertained.(e) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. 9(a)(iv), 25, 32 & 33-E---Voluntary return and plea bargain---Stages---Trial Court,jurisdiction of---Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for holding assetsdisproportionate to his known sources of income---After conviction and sentence was maintainedby Supreme Court, authorities filed application before Trial Court for recovery of fine---Duringpendency of recovery proceedings, accused filed application for plea bargaining, which wasdismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Provisions of S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance,1999, demonstrated two stages to accused for availing opportunity of plea-bargain i.e. prior toauthorization of investigation against him and, secondly during the course of trial or pendency ofappeal---Chairman NAB, was only authorized to discharge accused from all his liabilities inrespect of matter or transaction, provided that matter was not sub judice in any court of law---Trial Court could also entertain application under S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for plea bargain, when the matter was pending before it and after passing of finaljudgment, it became functus officio and had no power to entertain such requests---Besidesforfeited properties, NAB was also authorized to put to auction remaining properties of accusedin order to recover amount of fine as arrears of land revenue---Accused failed to point out anyillegality or irregularity to interfere in order of Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed incircumstances.(f) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioners have to approachthe court with clean hands.

Summary: S. 17 CPC, Section 11, C.P.C. was applicable to the proceedings under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.

Summary: ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Circumstantial evidence---Nodirect evidence was available in the case and prosecution case hinged on thecircumstantial evidence---Utmost care and caution was required for reaching at a justdecision in t

Summary: ''Pensionary benefits being paid to the Judges should be discontinuedwith effect from passing of the judgment and order by this Court, but nodirection for the of recovery of pensionary benefits and emoluments alreadyavailed by them can be given, as the same are undoubtedly not obtained bythem on account of any commission of wrong, fraud or fault on their partrather the same have been availed on account of a mistaken judgment bythis Court. As such, the instant judgment and order cannot be givenretrospective effect.''

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.