Imtiaz Ahmed Dev (Petitioner) VS NAB (Respondent)

qs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACI-II

Belorel Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shzrikh, C.J.

Mr. Justice Mohammad l(arim I(han Agha, J

C.P. No.D- l925 C* 1926 of 2017

Pclitiotrer lmtiaz Ahmed Dev S/o Chulam Hassarr throLlgh Mr. Nisar Ahmed 'l'arrar, Advocrltc.

Itespondent National Ac c o n t.1b ili ty l-l Bureau, through Mr. Mul.rammad Altal, Specini Prosecutor, NAB.

rL .o9.2017.

ORDER

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J:- 'l'ltc Pi lilrortct (lrrrlrrr,.

Ahmcd Dev) through thesc petitions has challettgecl both thc impugnetl orclcrs datecl '24.O2.2O17, passccl in l?eli'rctrcc No. 1 I /201 5 (State v. lutrau Gh:rni & otl.rcrs) at.rcl Rcfc'tcrtcc No. 12/2015 (State v. Noot Muherrnmaci & others) b-v the lean'red Judge Accouutability Court No. II, I(arachi,',vl.rercb-v the petitioner's applications u/s 265 I( Cr.P.C. were clismissed through the impugr.red ol'ders (tl-le irtpuguecl ol'ders).

2.'l'l.rc bri!:I lac1s ol-Lloth ol t]lc rcfclcll((s itt-c 1ltirl 1ltIr ltotlr involve Sal('s tilx rCliind scants lo tllc lllll(' ol' apprt.rritniLtel-r' RS '18 lrrilli.)n i!rr(l RS 'l!l tnilliorr rcspcttivt'1r rvltt'r'clr.1, the 1tc'titiotler' \l'llo itt tlle tinle ol tltc s( illll \\'irs Aclclitioral CollectoI S.,iles l't]-\ Dcpi'rrtlllellt rvllo ill colIIIivalI( (' u,ith othcr co.rccused lvl-lo u(rc aiso Salcs Ttrx ollictitls itrlcl olrc' I3elnk ollicial of Asl<at-i cornmet-cial [Jtrn]< by satrctiottilrg

salcs tirx l'etuncls oll thc basis ol [al<e sttles t elr ittvoiccs allowed trvo owne rs / pro prietol-s (Ms Usmatr'fcxtilcs Mill arrrl

Ms Noor lcxtile Mills) by mislrsing tlreir alrthority/ ftiilinti to iPs exercise their authority cnabled tl)e albresald Proprictolsll to illegr.tll1 rcccive l).rymcnt of the albresaicl sttit's tix rclr'tttcls

in respcct of llogr-ls ltncl 1:auclulcI-lt srlles tilx itlvoiccs rvlliclr

cartsecl a huge loss 1o tlle Sttrte arlcl thus the lletitiotler eilotrg

with tlle co accuse.i conlmitlccl 'lcLs r)l culrLll)tiull crrlrlillP' within the .rln1lit ol the National AcrcoLllltabiiitY Ortlitttrtlcr: lJtttcittt 1999 (NAO) at'rcl het.rcc the Natiollal AccounLitbilitv filecltl-reaforesaiclt.elerctrces|rg.]inStthePCtitiollcfirnclotlt<.t.

co-accused

3.Lcilrncd cot-tllscl for tlle pl:titioncr c<ltrtettclecl tllilt l)(rr l)ut lrt)1 ir proseclltioll his rolc rvas ol a sanctiol-liltg o[[i(]cr singlc picce of evidc'tlcc h:!(i c()rne ol.l lecol'cl to show tlliit lrc tllLls tllclc harl ir facl strrlctitlllecl iuy ol the fakc ittvoices all(l hc n'as elltitlCtl Ntrs :rbsoltttely Ilo cvid!'llcc agai:lst llim i'rttcl (lr-PC to l)c .rc(lLlitte(l rttlclcl s 2(r5 I(

:1. Pcr contra lcal-necl senior Prosecrrlor lbr lllc NAll ol cor.rvicliotl ol submittccl lhat thcre w'ts strollg probabilitv wlro sanctiotletl tile illegal thc pctitioner as he was tlre llt'rsott his cot-ttclltitltt t-clellccl to sales tax t-cfunds trtrd ir-l sltllpol-t ol the pc:titiorlcr t1s tllc thc .lllclit report which specllic'11Iv namecl siutctiol litlg officet '

Wc h:tvc hettt-cl leattlctl t'trtttstl I"r thc l)il1 tlrs 'rrr(l

crLlciirlly Pcrusecl ttre recorcl Ye/

l

6.It is worth reproducing Section 265 K Cr' P C under which the apPlications were moved by the petitioner to see precisety what are the requiremeuts of tllat section wlricll this petition in eflect revolves around whicl] is set oLlt 'rs under:-

.265-K. Pouter of Coutt to acquit accused al anA staoe. Nc.tllrinq in this Chopter shqll be deemedqnA to nreTtent e CourL ftotn c.tcquitling cin clccusPd al 'slaqe of the c.rie. tf ctfier hearittg lhe proseLulor rrni tni orrut"d and Jor reasons lo lte recotded it co,nsiders that there ts no probabllltg o! the, i..o".d belng conuicted of ang ofJence"'(bold added)

7.The allegation against the petitioner as per both References is as follows:-

'ln the investigation it aPpears that accused / petition er lmliaz Ahmed Dev {tl.tc ,.,"r itioncri was the lhen Additional Collectr'rr Salcs irr. o.p"r,-.nt who sanctioned Sales Tax Refund wlthout any verlflcatlon"'

8.The main piece of evidetrce that the prosecution aPPears to be relying on are the audit reports in respect oI both the

proprietorships which was prepared by Mr' Raza (Deputv

Director) and Mr. Naeem Al<bar (auditor) Both these signatories to the audit report have given eviclence

9.Mr. Raza was callecl as PW I who stated ill cross examinatiol.l as under itl material part verifies ""lt is correct to suggest that if STARR system ",'."'.rrl- ir,i*qlr firalysi" sheet that clainttocortlrl nut lt is correct t.".'r"""a ".J lii" to be paidclalm suggest fi";';;;;;;;-anv refund in sanctlonlng .of ;;;;;J-- i"y,".nt order (RPo) is -assigned bv 'fhe saflc,tloning offlcer. process.ol verlllccllolr or olher the sallclion claitrr for san(tioning ls the nole srrcF-r ''r case tt ts correct to suggest that whenlz ;ir; ;;;;il"

4 4e there was-no the audltor submitted the audit report #"a ffi;; in the record whlch "truet "vaitautt claims were allegedly sanctloned ;t; these ";;t iy-tt""""a f*alaz Ahmed Dev"' (bold added) was called as

10.Mr, Naeem Al<bat', rvJ.to was the auclitor as ulrde r lll matcll'rl PW 2 wl-ro statecl trl cross examillation part

the documents referrccl "lt is fact that I did not produceptaced at Ex'19/1 to thc i" r"tl"L-"f ,f-l. audit ieport iilE:'-;';";;; i the nud gl"n the same to mv htsher I see note sheet and analysis sheet ""ifr-iii""' li"'ai""' .tr- ln question and sav that these ;:.;;""";;;,,oi t"h'"t that the claim lnDev' questlon It is i"""sH;;ii"o;;i bv t'"o"'d Imtiaz Ahmed :;;'i;;cst"t tntt durinE audit' I dldPara not see e of ;;:;;;;ru suPPort thelontents of ;: ;;il--;;;"tt tt'"i ut' clalm ln question lvas i'"".irli"u'ii- tccustd Imtlaz Ahmed Dev'" (bolcl ;rdded)

implicate tlre 1 1. Both ot these star witne sses in no way made against hirn petitioner ln connection with the allegatior.r in tl,etr evidence in the references as mentioned above whether he had

12.Furthermore, when confrontecl as to or ill.lv any other statement of a PW' S' 161 slatement petitioner in ar]y way with thc document which implicate cl the setrior prosect-ttor lor NAB allegation against hirn the learncd no sttcl.t statemerlt or:

reluctalltly concecled tl.rat he had been allle Lo Ltnealtll stl(ll

docttt1rent as NAB hacl tlot department' As such NAB's documents from the concerned lhe petitioner was the aLlclit sole piece of eviclence agalnst or substantiated with report which has not been corroborated mattttet'ullrrtsoever' regard to tlle PeLitioner in atlv h

13.Under these circumstances rve are o[ the cor.tsidered view that in the absence of any tangible evidence against the petitioner implicating hin.r ir.r Ll're olfeuces so charged Lo allow the proceedings to continue may amount to an abuse of lhc process of law and it would serve no useful purpose in altowing the proceedings to continue as such we hereby sel aside both the impugned orders in references ll/2015 and 12/20\5 pending before Accountability Court No.ll l(arachi and quaslt the Proceedings tn both references to the extent ol the petitioner (lmtiaz Ahmed Dev) lt is ntade clear however that the Sales Tat ALrthorities shall be free to recover the delrauded amount of sales ta:< in accordance with law

14.Above are the reasons for our short order datcd 05.O9.2017 which for ease of reference reads as under:- "For reasons to be recorded later on, captioned petitions stand allowed. Consequently proceedings culmitlating from References 11 /2015 alld 1212O15 Lo the extent oI petitioner Inltiaz Ahmed Dev are quashecl"

UL

JUPGE

CHIEF JUS ?8$