Muhammad Amin (Petitioner) VS NAB & Ors (Respondent)

3qc

IN THE HIGH CQURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Before Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh. CJ. > Mr. Justice I\{uhammad Karim Khan Agha

i. L-:,P. No. D-956 ctf 2Oi,T , Sajid Ali Khan-Vs- Chairman, I{AB thr-r,ug1h Mr. M. Azam Menron, Advocate Sajict Ali Kharr Yonsufzai son of Abciul Azim Khan yousufzai.

2.C.P. No. D-838 of 2016. Muhammad Riaz-Vs-Chairman, NAB through il4r.Ir,4unir Malik and Mr. FIaq Nawaz Talpur, Advocates Muhamrnad Riaz son of Muharrrmad Ilyas.

3.C.P. No. D-118 of 2017. Afzal Khan-Vs- Chairman, NAB througtr Mr. ,Javed Ahmed Rajput, ,Advocate Aizal Khnn son ol Fazal Kiran.

4.C.P. No. D-1401 of 2OI(t. i\4uhamrnad Farooq & Others- Vs-Chainnan, NAB through Mr. Zia ul Haq Makhdoom, Ad vocate Muhamrnad Faroocl son of Yosul'.

Wali Muhammad son of Abdul Latee .

Ivluhamrnad Atrees son of Ahrnecl.

Muhammad Yoi"rnus s/o Haji Abdul Rehman.

Afaq Khan Gi:rori son of Abtlul Razzak Ghori.

5.C.['. No. D-862 of 2077. Mirza Afzal Baig-Vs- Chairman, liAFS thrcugh lvlr'. Usrnan Ttrfail Shaikh, Advocate NItrzt:. Atzal Beig s,--,n ,tf lAirzrt Airrneci Baig.

6.C.P. Itle. D-ti74 of 20i6. Syed Arrir Ali tihah-Vs- Chairrlan, irlAB tirrougl-i l",lr, iiaq Na.i,r4raz TerJp,cr and Syed { J amali-rdcl il Bul(frar-i S,1,e6 U,rt. Aii S;hair -qr;n of 5:l.y,ed AJil:l-ar A1i Sh:r,h.

7.(l i). ['.1r,. ii-1.]:-l i r;i ,l0li 7 . l,jr;hr:rn;naC, ibririiirn-Vs- Ct:.rilila.:'t, ;\,r,Li l;rr'"it.lh I\L, :,;i. ,llzirn) lvl.,:ton, i\dv'ocate Vit.t j'i;itln it:ir i ii--,r,iriitr,:l :;0;r cri ;\,i l.t lla;l rIt-t,-1. Y'cusul.

3qt

B. C.P. No.D-4 128 ol 2077 . Farooq Shahid-Vs-NAB & others through Mr. Raja Bhbar Hamid, Advocate. Farooq Shahid son ofYahya Saddiq.

9.C.P. No. D-738 of 2017. Muhammad Hamid Riaz-Vs- Chairman, NAB through Mr. Javed Ahmed Rajput Muhammad Hamid Riaz son of Riaz-ul-Hassan.

10.C.P. No. D-334 ol 2OI7. Muhammad Amin-Vs- Chairman NAB through M/s. Javed Ahmed Rajput and Abdul Rehman Thaem, Advocates Muhammaci Arnin son .tf Muhammad Bashir.

1 1. C.P. I'io. D-335 oI ?-O17 . Mst. Farida -Vs- Chairman NAB through M/s. .iated Ahmed Ra;put and Abdul Rehman Thaem, Advocates NIst. Farida .,r,ift: of Muhammad Yousuf.

12.C.P. No. D-336 of 2017. Muhammad Iqbal-Vs- Chairmal, NAB throughrMTs. Javed Ahmed Rajput and Abdul Rehman Thaem, Advocates Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Yousuf.

13.C.P. No. D-222 of lOl7. Fahad Ahmed-Vs- Chairman, NAB through M/s. Javed Ahmed Ra-fput and Abdul Rehman Thaern. Arlvocates Fahad Ahme<l son of Fafiaz Ahmed.

14.C.P. I'io. D-223 of 207'7. Sbahlraz Ahmed-Vs- Chairman. NAi3 through IvI,rs. .rov.O Ahrned Rajput and Abdul Rehman Thnem, Aclvoc:ates Shal:baz Alrmecl son of Faw,az Ahmed.

i 5. C.P. Nt-.. t-r-1 i9 of 2Ol7 . lt,h:hammad Arif & Ors.-Vs- Chairmarr, NAB tirrough Mr. Naveed Ahmed, Advocate Muhamuad Arif son of Mtrhammad Siddiq. Muhammad Aslam son of IV{uhammad Saddiq.

16.C.P. No. D-121 of 20i7. F'aisa,l Waseem & another-Vs- Chairman, l'lAB throurgh M,/s. tlasro,rr Ahrned Alvi and Fareed Ahmed Dayo, Adrroca:.es Faisal V/aseerr son of N4uhammaii Saleernuddin. Muhammad Jawaid scn ol'X4uhatumad Zakria.

17.C.P. No. D-896 of 2017. Muhammad Arit-Vs- Chainnan, NAB througir Abclul Wahab Baloch, Advocate Muhammad Arif son of Muhammacl Bashir.

Advocate for the Respondents in all Const. Petitions Special Prosecutor NAB I\4r.Yasir Siddiqui,

Y?

4oo l

Dated of Hearings: 19.tO.2017, 0r.17.2017, 02.11.2017, 07.1t.201.1, 15. I 1.2017 &, 16.r1.2017

Date of Order: 23.tr.2017

ORDER

Mohamma.d Karitn Khan Aqha. J. By this common order, we intend to dispose of all the petitions seeking pre arrest and post arrest bail filed on beha-1f of the petitioners as rrlentioned above.

2.Brief facts of tlre case are that on various complaints against the management of the Pal< Punj ab Cooperative Housing Society (the society) regarding ,allggation of fraudulently transferring of society's plots of original allottees to fake and bogus persons and further selling of the society's plots to the builders Ui, fuf." and illegal management committee an inquiry was authorized and conducted by the NAB which was later converted into an investigation.

3.That, the investigation revea.led that in the society 358 plots were allotted to original / genuine members of the society. However, Accused No. 1 namely Abrar'. Ahmed, the then Honoraqr Secretary of society and Accused No.S.namely Afzal Klnao a fake member of the society in connivance with each other illegally issued new share certil'icates and enrolled fake members, r,r,ho were employees of Sindh Workers'Welfare Boar<l (SWWB). Further a fake and illegal managing committee was elected comprising fake members through eiections r-rncler the supervision of Mirza Mlrnir Baig (Accused No.6) anci lArza A-fz.al I3aig (Acr:trsed No.7).

4.The investigation further revealed that the fake elected / Managing Comrr:rittee General Body illegaliy and matafidely apprcved ne-rv layout piar-r in which all categories of residential plots \vere illega11y cdncelled and all plots were convertcrd into one category of 120 square yards each in order: to sell / transler the plots through fake allotment process. v

Qol-

5.That, during investigation it rt,as revealed that Accused No.2 Sajid Ali Khan issucd an NOC dated 22.11.2006 witlr regard to tlie lay out plari and forrvarrded the same to Accused No.8 Muha:nrnad Akhtdr Pathan. Further Accused No.2 cancelled the allotmerLt of o.ld and genuine allottees and allotted 54 i plots in the names of SWWB employees and others.

6.Tlre investigation also revealed that on 22.07.2008 lake electicrls were condtrctr:d by the Accused No,16 Hamid Riaz Election Olficer anC F.ccused No.6 N'lirza lvlunir Baig, the then Inspector Cooperative Dgpartment and again iake society members v',,ere eleetei un-i.rpposecl in which most of theln v"'ere ernplo-yees oI S\,WB: Accusecl |tro'3 Farooq Shahicl becarne pui.';rorted Secretary of tire society.

7 . The investigation iut rher reveaied that an inquiry was contl,.tcted by the Cooperertion Department into the affairs of tlie scrcieiy 'whet-r:b1' tl-re fake management of the society was l' he!d re s1.rct-r,sitrl e fol ilLep,al <:aucellation of allotment of old rlerrri:t:rs, illegai re'.,isi.rn o I t)re layo ut plan and showing enrollments oi t'.en' ancl Iali,,, nternllr:l's in the year 2004 and 2006. irtu tticr, it rl'ais hcltl i-hat l'ake fiies ir-L the narmes of emplo5rees r.verc prepareri a;ld la''';er cn transferreci ir-r the name of ti-re Accitsed persons in collnir.'a:rce v'ith the fake elected managemer-rt of ttre society.

8.It is aiso apparent from the investigaticn that on 08. 1 1 .t2008 a fa.l<e a-rr-rctio n o{ 26 x commercial plots of the society vr.,s conducted;ii ,:onnivance l'rith the officers / olTici a-1 :, r:,1 Co tr p elartii'e Ll ell ar t m ent.

9 'Iihat, ihe investigatir:n lurtl-rer revealed that Abrar

I

Airmt:ci. (Aci:i--'sec1 l'i<;.1) 'ltle thrll'l f{onorary Secletary of the iioclrr,t}', ir; conniviln,.:e r"'ith the A':cused Nrc'5 Afzrr'l [i']ran ilr--r:t.,d fi.rk<; si': trt-.: cc.rti{icatr:s ior s1-rorving induction of fal:e

rrelv r[;]rnbe;s in thc ll'ltlitili of eir:pio,';ees of t']re SWWB eind otli,.'r's i,-: r'irti.ttic-rli t-'f the: Etre iali's of the scr:iety The Accr-ised

IL

4oZ

No.1 further forwarded new revised layout plan in which he converted all categories of the plots and deprived the rights of the old genuine members of the society. Accused No.l conducted fake election.in connivance with deceased accused Zafar Saleem, Mirza Munir Baig (Accused No.6) and accused Sajid Ali Khan (Accused No.2) and handed over the management of the society to a fake management committee with the intention to dispose of the plots / land of the society to the builders and others.

10.That, the investigation revealed that Sajid Ali Khan (Accused No.2) in connivance with the deceased accused Zafar Saleem and Accused No.l,6 & 7 became members of the fake marlagement committee as well as purported Honorary Secretary of the society' The Accused No.2 also got approved new revised layoul plan in connivance with the Accused No.S Muhammad Akhtar Pathan depriving the rights of the old genuine members and further cancelled their memberships and allotments illegally, Further Accused No'2 in connivance ',1'ith the other accused persons made fake allotments in the narnes of lake members and illega1ly transferred the fake iiles of allotments and leased the precious plots of the societv to the Accnsed No'9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 the norniuees of the Accused No.4, otl the basis of fake sales agreemeltt.

11.That, the investigation further revealed that Farooq Shahid (Accused No.3) in contrivarice with the Accused No'2' 6 and i 6 got i-rimself eiectecl as Secretary of the society throulh unopposed falie elections. The accused No'3 became illegal Secretary of the society and transferred lake a-llotments to the Accused No.17, 18, 19, 20,21,22,23,24,25 and 26 1 and leased the plots of the society in their narnes' The Accused No.3 lltrttrer conducted/ managed a fake auction of the commercial plots ol the society in connivanie with the deceased accused Zafar Saleem and Accused No'27 as iepresentative of Cooperurtive Department and leased the piots of the society in the nanie of Accused No"2B'

U

q03

I :1. 'lhat, rt is a,ir.,-r eve i'.1cil dr r-rr,-rr1 in',,r- s;trgi.:tion that Accits.:cl Nc 4 Milirarnrnarl liia-:, the c',vtlei ,/ partner of lvlrls. Falakriaz (\'l/ s. Al,'i'arrccr- r,ro1,cr tiesJ in connlvance wtth Accltscd No.1. :2,1J.5,1,+,15 arrC deceaserl accused Za-far Saleenr usurped !.OO x plots of the society on the basrs of {:ri<e rlles of tlr; allotrnents irr 1he nafires of fal<e rrernbers and t;eirrslcn'r:tl / leas.:J th,,tse pl.-.>rs .ln rhe r-iames cI Accused No 9, 10, 1 1, 12 irrld 1 ?. l,r-trr r:rr, the accusctl No.4 illegall5, Iaun-cherl s Commr:ruial projer:t in the narne and styfu: of Falal<rraz Galden }rehbles and sold the }and of the society and earncd nrillions of rupees.

13.'l'hat, during investigation it rs also revealed that Afzal Iil'ran (Accused No.5) a lfake member of the socrety, in connivance wrth the Aecused No. 1, rssued fake share certificates in the narnes of employees of the SWWB and others showrng them as nelv rnducted members rn violatior-r of the Bye ld.Ws of the socret_v to ensure fake allotments of the precious land / plots of the society. The Accused No.5 further arded in the condr-rct of fake electron rvlth the lntention to dispose off the plots / land of the society to the builders and others.

14.During investrgatron of the case iL rvas found that Accused No.6 Mirza Munir Baig the then Inspector of the Cooperatrve Department and observer of the electrons of the society arded to conduct fake electrons and got elected fake manaBernent commrttee, whrch subsequently revised new layout plan and drsposed off the precious land of the society to the burlders and others

15.That, ir rs rr.'as arlso found that Mtrza Afzal Baig (Accused Y No.7) the then Electron Officer aided in cotlduct of fa-l<e elections and got elected fake marragement comrnittee, which subsequently rer.ised ne\A/ layout plan of the society and drsposed of the precious land of the soclet)' to the builders and others. He also received rupees 5O million by using

L1o\ 't

bank account of his nephew and further disbursed to the accused persons.

16.It rs also revealed in the investigatron that Muhammad Akhtar Pathan (Accused No.B) the then Drstrrct Officer Cooperattve, CDGK int connlvance wtth the accused No.2 > forwarded iilegally new revised layout plan of the society wtth the knowledge of the fact that old genuine metnbers of the soclety were already allotted the plots on the basis of old layout plan which depnved the legal rrghts of the genurne allottees of the plots of drfferent categories.

17 it rs also revealed rn the investigatron that Ghulam Qadrr Pathan (Accused No.9), Muhamrnad Farooq (Accused No.10), Muhammad Your,us (Accused No.11), Muhammad Anees (Accused No,12) and Wah Muhammad (Accused No.13) being nominees of the Accused No.4 aided to usurp lOO x plots of the society and further added the launch of an illegal commercial project namely Falaknaz Golden Pebbles on the land of the society.

18.That, rnvesttgatron further revealed that Afaq Khan Ghori (Accused No.14) in conntvance wlth the Accused No 2 and Accused No.15 got leased 100 plots of the society on the basrs of fake special po',ver of attorneys of the accused persons No 9,10,1 I,l2 and 13 in their names and arded Accused No.4 the builder to usurp the 100 plots of the society.

19.That, it ts also revealed in the rnvestrgatton that Khudadad Khan (Accused No.15) the then Sub Registrar, Gulshan II in conntvance u'rth ttre Accused No' i4 and Accused No.2 leasecl the 1OO plots of the society on the basts L of ferke special power of attorneys of the Accr-rsed No 9' 10' I 1' 1.2 atd 13 in theil names anrl aided the builder Accused No 4 to usurp the 100 plots of thc sr:cie1-i'

2O. lt rs also discloseri in Lh': investigatrort lh:t lluhanlmad Harnict Rtaz (.r.cc.tse,J Irio i{r) the then Electron Offrcer arded in lL

L

H"S

conduct of fake elections'in the year 2008 through "vhich a fake management committee was elected unopposed whrch disposed of the precious, lancl of the society to the burlders and others

21 .The rnvestrgatron further revealed that Syed Amrr Ah Shah (Accused No 17), Muhammad Iqbal (Accused No'18), Muhammad Ibrahim (Accused No.19), Mst. Farida (Accused No.20), Farsal Waseem (Accused No.21), Muhammad Aslam (Accused No.22), Muhammad Jaward (Accused No'24) Muharrrmad Arrf Siddique (Accused No 23), Muhammad Nadeem Khan (Accused No 26) and Muhammad Arif Bashtr (Accused No.25) in connivance with the Accused No 3 got transferred the fake files of allotments and leased the plots of the soctety tn their names Later on, they as owners / partners of M/s' Marhaba Builders, launched an illegal commercial project nargely Prernier Regency Villas on the land / plot of the society and sold the plots to the general public and earned millions of rupees.

2'2. That, the Investigatiori further revealed that Muhammad Younus Baloch laccuJed No 27) as representattve of Cooperative Departmellt t'aided Accused No'3 and deceased Accused Zafar Saleem to conduct purported meeting of the attction committee to drspose of 26 commercial plots of the society fraudulentlY.

23.That, du:'ing investigatlorl it rs also revealed Adnan in (Accused No.28) anci Muhammad Amin (Accursed No'29) Accused connivar-rce wrtl-r the decea sed accuse-d ZaIal Sale em' No.3 and Accused No.27 usurped 13 commercial plots each of the society through fake process of auction' t

24.That the lnvestlgatlol'l revealed that Muhammad Amtn t accused (accused No.29) rn con hrvance 'lllth the deceased i3 Zalbr Saleem, accusecl No,3 ancl accused No 27 usurped process of commercral plots of the society through fake allctron.

t1

qa6 g

25 e rnvestigatiot.: :-everr.led that lrccuscd No 30 Umard Tl-r

Tar:q rs a fake mernber ar\rl pLl portcd office be'erer of the sociefir- lcas;erl plots of ,-trc l,:c:e1y t-o tht- A-;c',,se<l ]lo 31 and 32.

26.'lhat, the investrgation revealed that Syeci !-irhad ,lrhmcd (Accused No.31) Shahb nz Ahrned (Accused No.i)2) & Anrla d,l.laz [A(-cllscd No.33) usurped the plots tn coilrLrvanr,'e wr1-l-t iac.-'Lrse.l i',Io,2 anrl alo, the riiegal cffrce bearer oi the socrety.

'.27. That, the investtgattoii rtlso revealed that dc-cea.seci Zafar Saleent as Dlrectoi- SWWE ll ( onnlr,rance with the Accused 1\o. t, 2, 3, 5 and o+,irers used the names of enrployees of the SW\f,'E and others for the fake new rnembership and allotments and transfcr of allotfiLents of the plots of society. He managed fake elections in thc year 20O6, and got elected fraudulently Accused No'2 Sajid Ali t(han who abetted / aided Accused No.4 Muhamrnad Riaz owner of )' M/s. Falaknaz ar.d Accused No.2O to usurp 435 x plots of the society and launch their illegal commercial ptoject on these plots and receivetl cash amount from the amount of the purported sale consideration amount of 100 x plots paid by M/s. Falaknaz to the Accused No.7 through his nephew. The deceas,:d Accused Zafar Sa,leem ln colllllvance rvrth the Accusecl No 3 and Accused No.27 marraged the fake auction proceedrn gs of the 26 x cornmercial plots cf the soclety to drspose of these plots fraudulently

28.,Since sorte of the petltioners have apphecl for pre arrest bai t aLflcl sorne o1 1 l".e petitroners have applicd for post arrest barl u'e shall take trp the cases of pre arrest ball frrst' v Pre arrest bail cases

29.I.earned Counsel l-or petitioner Mohammed Riaz, lvho was the btrilder r-r1. the project l<nown as Falaknaz Gclden Pellbies fronr fhe illegaliy tra,rsl'erretl land of the socrc'ty anC sold the land on to non mernbers for a huge proirt, contended lrz.-

Qo') t0

that he was completely rnnocent of any wrong doing arrd had not usurped as alleged i00 plots of land, that he had pard fuli market value for the lald and as such had not caused any loss; that he had advertised its purchase openly a-nd no one had come forward to clarrn that he had usurped the land and thus by actrng in such an open manner (as opposed to secretive manner) he had no mens rea; that he was a bona fide purchaser; that he had dealt with the society whose malagement had been recognized by the Regrstrar of Co- operatives under the Co-operative Societies Act 1925; that he relied on the presumption that official acts could be relied upon under A.129 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984; that he had not connived wrth anyone; that he had nothing to do wtth how the affarrs of the society were run, rts elections, its management commlttee etc a:rd the the malafide of NAB was shown by rncludrng him in the reference in the first place when there was no material whatsoever to connect hrm to the offense for whrch he had been charged or the supposed land

L

scam; he also pornted out that 3 co-accused had already been granted post arrest bail by thrs Court ald hrs case was on a better footrng. Namely, accused No 28 Adnan who has allegedly ursurped 13 plots, accused No.i5 Khudadad Khan who was the then sub Registrar and accused No.S Mirza Munrr Baig who was the then Assistant registrar co-operative Department rvho had allegedly supervrsed the bogus elections of the fake management committee of the Socrety.

30.Learned counsel for rietitioner Afzal Khan submitted that he was 1ega11y a member of the Society; that he left the society on 06.08 2006 and thereafter had nothing further to do with the Society and as'"uch he could not be saddled with any liabilrty for any illegalities whrch had occurred after he / had left the socrety; that all new members were rnducted between 2OO2 and 2004 before he 3oined the society and as such he had nothing to do wrth the cancellation of the allotment of the ongrnal members arld induction of the new members; that during hrs pertod nothrng was done with the

qsl lt -.--

plots; that there was po material agarnst hrm and as such this was a case of further inqurry and he was entttled to pre arrest barl.

31 . Learned counsel for petitioner Mirza Afzal Baig subm itted that the petitroner was an electton officer at the time of the election of the Management committee and the other election officer Mrrza Muntr Baig had already been granted barl vide order of thrs court dated 24-04-2017 and as hts case was on a srmilal , or even better footrng he was entitled to barl based on the rule of consistency. With regard to the allegation that hrs nephew had received RS5O M on account of hrm manrpulating the managlng conrmittee elections he denied that lhrs was the case artd that NAB had not been able to provi{e any material in support of this allegation and thus since there was no material agatnst hlm thls was a case of further 1nqulry and hrs was entitled to ball.

32.Learned counsel for Muhammed Farooq, Wali

T

Mohammed, Muhammed Anees, Mohammed Younis and Afaq Khan Ghori adopted the arguments of pettttoner Mohammed Riaz.

33.He further submrtted that none of the petittoners were connected wrth the management of the society or the soctety in any way; that they were the relatives and nominees of petitioner Mohammed Riaz who was a bona ftde purchaser of the 100 plots from the society through an agreement dated 2g-Og-2OO7 through petitroner Sa;rd Ah Khan on behalf of the soclety and the petitroner Mohammed Riaz who was the builder of Falaknaz Golden Pebbles who had allotted to them as hrs nominees the 1OO plots. in effect the petitioner Afaq Khan Ghon been given specral powers of attorney by

Y

petrtloners Muhammed Farooq' Wali Mohammed, Muhammed Anees and Mohammed Younis to register the sub leases and otherwrse deai wrth the plots whrch were duly registered by accused Khudadad Khan the then sub regrstrar Gulshan II Karachi who has already been granted barl vrde l+

llo\

order of this court datdd 17-06-2077 where by in the barl order rt had been noted by the court after checkrng' the relevant record that the porver of attorneys were not falte and since the only allegation agarnst petrtroner Afaq Khan Ghori was that he had filed fake powers of attorney he along with the other petitroners were entrtled to barl as this was a case of further inqurry and the rule of conststency also applied as the case of the petitioners was on a better footrng than that of Khudadad Khan who had already been granted bail by this court and as such the petitroners should be granted pre arrest barl.

34.Learned counsel for petitioner Mohammed Hamid Riaz submitted that tl',. pJ,[itio.,.. was an election officer at the trme of the election of the l\4anagement commlttee ard the other election officer Mirza Munir Baig had already been granted barl vide order of thrs'court dated 24-O4-2O17 and as his case was on a srmrlaf or even better footrng he was I entrtled to barl based on the rule of consrstency.

35.Learned counsel for petitioner Syed Aamir Ali Shah contended that he was a buslness man aud was the brother in law of Zaffar Saleem (rvho u,as DG Works Sindh Workers Welfare Board (SWWB)) who had encouraged hrm to purchase the plots of members of SWWB as rt would be a good business opportunlty for hrm; that as such he had entered into partnershrp with co-accused Mohammed Iqbal through a.;otnt venture agreement in order to construct a proJect to be known as Premrer Regency Vrlla's; that he was a bona fide purchaser of the plots rvhich he had purchased from employees of SWWB who rvere the lawful owner of the plots, that he had bought the plots at the market value of one Iac 26,5O0 each being 120 sq yds; that rt was a case of no evtdence and under the rule of consistency he was entitled to barl as co-accused Adnan whose case was on the same footing as hrs had already been granted bail by this court vrde order dated 24-04-2017 and as such his pre arrest barl should be confirmed. h-

uto t3

36.Learned counsel {oft petitioners Mohammed Iqbal, Mohammed Ibrahim Fareeda yousaf submitted "r+dqMSt that the petitioners were completely innocent; that they had nothing to do with the management or affairs of the society; that Mohammed Iqbal had entered rnto a Joint Venture Agreement wrth co-accusd Syed Amir Ali Shah who owned t- 336 plots of the society and that he became a jornt owner of these plots by virtue of thd joint venture agreement for which he had paid co-accused Syed Amir Ah Shah around 3 crores and 97 lacs; that he was a professronal builder and that his role in the jornt venture was to build a residentral project on the plots known as Premier Regency Vrlla,s; that some of the plots were in the name of co-accused Mohammed Ibrahim (who was his brother) and Mst Fareeda yousaf (who was his mother) as in essence he ran a family business; that he was a bona fide purchaser ald had purchased the plots at full market value; in additron in respect of co-accused Mst Fareeda he submitted that she had severe medical issues as \ she had had her knee caps replaced and was now wheel chair bound; that there was no material against hrm and srnce this was a case of further lnqulry all the petitroners were entrtled to confirmatron of there pre arrest bail.

37.Learned counsel for petitioners Faisal Waseem ald Mohammed Javard submttted that they were innocent of any wrongdorng; that they were humble employees of the Premier Group whrch u,as headed b1 Mohammed Arif accused No 13; that they were bona fide purchasers who had ;ointly bought the plots with co-accused Syed Aamrr Ah Shah and in effect -"vere benamrdars of Mohammed Anf; that no specific role had been given to them rn the relerence and as such there pre arrest barl should be confirmed. In support of his contentions I he placed reliance on Anjum Aqeel Khan V National Police Foundation (2015 SCMft 1348) and Rafiq Haji Usman V Chairman NAB (2015 SCMR i575)

38.Learned counsel for. petitiondr Mohammed Amin submltted that he had not, usurped any plots as had been

4l\

II

alleged; that he never particip,ated in any auction; that he had purchased the plots from Mohammed Raffique who had purchased them at auptron and thus he was a bona fide purchaser; that the real accused 1n respect of the auctron was Mohammed Raffique who had not even been rncluded as an accused rn the reference; that his case was similar to that of t co-accused Adnan u'ho had already been granted barl by thrs court vide Order dated 24 04-2017 and thus based on the rule of consistency he was also entrtled to bail In support of his contentrons he placed rehance on Anjum Aqeel Khan V National Police Foundation (2O15 SCMR 1348) and Faquir Dad Khan Khoso, Gorahullah and others V NAB (Supreme Court order dated 29-03-2017 (Unreported) rn Crvil Pettttons No.258,260,268 and 457 all ol 2017.

39.Learned counsel for petitioners Mohammed Aslam and Mohammed Arif s/o Mohammed Srddiq submitted that they were completely rnnocent; that they were contractors l.

who had entered rnto an agreement wtth co-accused Syed Amrr Ali Shah rvho was a builder to construct a project known as Premier Regency Vrlla's and tn ord er to safeguard there interests got the plots of Syed Amrr Ah Shah transferred in therr ou,n name and thereaftet- got the srte plan sanctioned from SBCA; that there was no material of any wrong dotng agalnst them artd that thls was a case of further inquiry and as such they should be granted barl before arrest.

40.Learned counsel for petitioners Fahad Ahmed and Shahbaz Ahmed submrtted that the petrtioners were bona fide purchasers of the plot$. In support of his submission he

I

referred to the record r.r'hich shor.r'ed that the onginal allottees had sold the plots to another person who had then sold the I plots to the petitloners that the vendors were alive and that there u'ere no specral power of attorney's involved He further submitted if the original allottees and there subsequent purchasers rnere alive then rf any wrong dorng had been done they also should have been arrayed as accused rn the

t-l lZ t5

reference which they had not been. He also placed reliauce on an order of this court dated 24-04-2017 where co-accused Adnan had been granted post arrest bail whose case was on a similar footrng as that of the petitioners and as such the petttioners were also entrtled to bail, based on the rule of consistency.

f Post arrest bail.

47.Learned counsel fbr the petitioner Sajid Ali Khan submitted that he was completely innocent of any wrong doing. He contended that he was a legal member of the society following an amendment made in the society's bye laws on 27 -7O-2OO2 which enabled any one from Karacht to jorn the society; that he was not a fake member of the Managing Commrttee as he had been duly elected vide managing commrttees decisron as reflected in its mtnutes dated 27-O4-2OO5; that he had been legally elected as Secretary of the socrety as shown by the society's mlnutes f dated 14 08-2006 and the person who held those eiections accused No.6 Mirza Muntr Baig had been granted post arrest bail by thrs court vide order daLed 24-04-2017 on account of therr being prima facie no material on record to show that there had been any connivance to show that the electtons were fake and thus under the rule of conslstency he was also entitled to bail; that he did not approve the lay out plan; that he did not benefit from the sale of the land; that he did not illegally cancel the allotment to the or1glna1 allottees and that he had legally entered into the agreement to sell the society's land with petitroner Mohammed Riaz through Sale agreement dated 29-09-2007 whrch specifically allowed the land to be put in the name of the nomtnees of Mohammed Riaz and as { such there was insufficient matertal to hnk hlm to the commrsslon of the offense for whrch he had been charged and as such thrs was a case of further inquiry and he should be granted post arrest bai.

O

Qr3

I6

42.Learned counsel for petitioner Farooq Shahid submrtted that he was completely innocent of any wrong dorng; that he was a legally elected member of the society and legally elected secretary of the society who took over from petitroner Sa.1id Ah Khan as Secretary, that the sale agreement to Mohammed Rtaz had been signed by petitroner r Sa;rd Ali Khal before he assumed charge as secreta_ry and he was only a humLrle employee of Zafar Sa]eem. In support of his contentrons he placed reliance on Muhammed Wasem V Chairman NAB (2017 \LR 1528) Thus he submrtted that for all the above reasons this was a case of further inquiry and he should be granted post arrest barl.

43.Learned counsel for Petitioner Mohammed Arif who was accused No.25 in the reference and r,r,as allegedly a beneficiary/ allottee/ lessee of an rllegally sold plot submitted that he was completely innocent of any wrong dorng; that he was srmply an employee of the butlder who was Syed Amir Ali T Shah that he had no kngr,rledge of any lald scam; that 25 plots were rn hrs ornt name and as such he was not a beneficiary; that hrs CNIC had been rllega11y used without hrs knowledge and that he had been in jail since |O-O2-2O17 and, srnce there was no materral to hnk hrm to the commlssron of the offense he was entrtled to be released on post arrest bail.

44.On the other hand learned senlor prosecutor for the NAB submttted that there r.t,as more than sufllctent materral on record to link all the petrtioners wrth the offense for whrch they have been charged in the reference and took us through varlous relevant documents in thrs respect and as such the pre arrest bail granted by thrs court earlier to a11 the petrtioners should be recalled and hkewise a1l the petrtroners I who ad applied for post arrest bail should also have therr 1-r

petrtlons drsmrssed on the same count. That wrth regard to the petrtroners who had applied for pre arrest bail there had been absolutely no malafide on the part of NAB k-

utq t1

45.We have considered'the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, carefully. flerused the material available on record and the case law liied at the bar.

General Observations

l. 46. We would also like to make it clear that the findings in this order are only based on a tentative assessment of the material available on record and shall have no bearing on the .t on merits based on the evidence triai which sha,1l be decided placed before the trial court.

47 . At the outset, as we have done before in other similar NAB cases, we observe that cases of white collar crime are generally of an intricate and complex nature and the whole transaction and each component part of the scam needs to be viewed in a holistic manner and not in isolation' This is because in most cases the offence could not be committed without the active involver4ei'rt of all the accused in the chain \ of events which iead to the commission of the offense' However, notwithstanding this observation it is settled law that in cases of bail each of the accused needs in some way to be connected with the allegpd offense through a specific role and in the case of non bailabie offenses such as this there are reasonable grounds for Uelieving that the accused is connected with the commission of the offense for which he is charged.

48.For offenses of porruption charged under the NAO (white collar crimes) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Rai Mohammed Khan V NAB (2017 SCMR P'1152) has emphasized that the grant of bail in such cases must be construed strictly and rigidly even if, as in that case I referred to above, the amount involved was on the lesser side being only approx RS 12M (as opposed to billions of Rupees through the land scam as in this case) in the following terms at P. 1 154 Ouru rt

I

Ltts

"Under the principle of law and justice, each bail petition is to be decided on its own merits and the law applicable thereto, however, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the undeniable fact that the tendency of corruption in every field, has become a threatening danger to the State economy, striking on its roots. The public money, allocated for social sector and economic well being of the poor people, + is consistently embezzled / misappropriated at a large scale and why the majority of the population is deprived of essential daily utilities, like pure drinking water, health care and education facilities, etc. It has become the foremost obligation of each and every institution, including the Judicator, to arrest this monster at this stage, before it goes out of proportion, posing threat to the very survival of the State and State economy, therefore, the Courts shall apply the Anti-Corruption laws somewhat rigidly, once in fact the case is made out, at bail stage, against the accused person.

Distinction, however, is to be drawn between the ordinary criminal cases and of corruption on the above analysis and grounds, while deaiing with bail matter to an accused person, charged for such like crimes and also at the time of conviction, once the case is proved against him then, Courts t are not supposed to show any mercy by taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence."

49.Indeed, as in Rai Mohammed Khan's case (Supra) it is extremely tragic that out of the 4OVo of the society's land which was originally allocated for amenity purposes such as schools, parks, community centres etc which airned to benefit the loca-l communrty such allocation was wiped out by the greed of the management committee of the society in order to accommodate the building mafia which has plagued and continues to plague Karaghi through its il1ega1 activities in order to make rnoney 'at the overall expense of the infrastructure of the city a4d well being of the inhabitants of the city. This heinous crime of usurping amenity plots and Y constructing residential properties through houses, ( apartments and skyscrapers has placed an extra burden on the infrastructure of the city in terms of electricity, water, sewage etc which the city is bursting at the seam to meet and in many areas surch vita-l utilities and services are either

Z2

t4t L r l9

rattoned or not readrly available to the people of the city who are left to suffer in srlerlt but drsgruntled mrsery with no one to turn to rvho can adequately, trmely and efficrently address their legrtimate grlevances. Such land change from amenlty to residentia-1 or commercial purposes also in the long term gives rlse to other areas of organtzed crrme such as the tanker

J.

mafia w'hich is currently doing booming business rn Karachr Such rllegal acts ultrmately all lead to detnmenta-l srde effects for the inhabitants of the city which adds to their misery. No wonder the Supreme Court rn its wtsdom has in a recent order blocked the further constructron of hrgh nses in the city so that further damage to the infrastructure of the city can be minimized.

50.Durrng the course of hearrng these bail petitlons accu sed No. 1 Abrar Ahmed who had applied for pre arrest barl vide CP.D No.1352l2}l6 and was one of the main accused absconded and hrs pre arrest bail was recalled by I thi s court

51 . it appears that this land scam whereby the society's precrous land was illegally sold out, to the detriment of its original members whose allotments were rllegally cancelled, by subsequent fake management commlttees of the society in collusion wltln Zaffar Saleem (deceased) and co-other accused at an undervalue or even free of cost (which caused a loss to the Society and its genuine members of over RS 1 Billion), to builders and therr nominees/ beneficianes concerns numerous drfferent groups of accused who each played distinct roles in different parts of the land scam whlch can rrf essence he drr,'idecl into the followrng groups/roles/parts

(a)the illegal sale by the management of Lhe socrety to the benefictary builder of Falaknaz Golden pebbles (N4ohammed Rtazl who was rllegally sold/allotted 10O plots of society land rlpor, u,hich he burlt Falaknaz Golden Pebbles arcled and abetted by Afaq Ghori and Mohammed Rraz's nomtnee s, Mohammed Farooq, Mohammed Younrs. N4ohammed Anees and Walr Mohammed

qt1

who entered lnto an rllegal agreement wrth the society d ated, 2g-og-2o t7 .

(b)the rllegal sale by the management of the soclet)/ to the benefrciary burlder of Premier Regency Vrlla's.en 336 illegally sold/allotted plots of society ian{ ' through inrtially Syed Aamir Ali J Shah rvho later allegedly entered tnto a Joint venture agreeinent dated 07 -O4-2OO9 wrth Mohammed iqbhl and hrs nomrnees Mohammed Ibrahirn, Mst Farida, Fastal Waseem, Mohammed Aslam, Mohammed Arif, Mohammed Jawaid and Mohammed Arf for constructlon purposes.

I

(c)the iliegal sale b1, the management of the socrety through an illegal auctton of 25 commercial plots belonging to the society being N{ohammed Younis, Adnan (on Bail) arrd Mohammed Amln and

(d)The i11egal sale by Umair Tarrq (absconder) a member of the socrety who illegally sold/ allotted plots to Fahad Ahmed and Shabaz Ahmed.

I 52. Before morang further we shall frrstly deal wrth the case larv cited by the petitioners and its applicability based on the facts and clrcumstances of the preserlt case. Rafiq Haji Usmants case \\ras of the vrew that that particular case was mainly of crvrl nature as opposed to a crimtnal nature and therefore rvould not fall r.vrthrn the purvrew ol the NAO. The case 1n hand rs undoubtedly a case w-hich is almost entrrely oI t a criminal nature tn li,htch Lhe NAO rs applrcable and as such Rafiq Haji's case (Supra) is drstinguishable. In the case of Anjum Aqeel Khan (Supra) this is more suPPortive of the current prosecution cage than the defense case, In that case so-called bonafide purchasers were glven a chance to surrender tl-reir rllegaliy allotted plots which opportunity none of the accused desptte berng offered have availed in this case Y Furthermore, none of the builders (Mohammed Rraz, Amir Ali Shah and Mohammed Iqbal and their nomrnees/ partners) are in our vreu' bona frcle purchasers, and as such would not quahfy for such reltef, as thel' rvere a1l part of the land scam in cortntvance unth the management of the socrety tn order to b

t.

t4lg ?t

illegally deprive the soclety of precious land and simultaneouslv to benefit themselves through rllegal constructlons rr..hrch were sold to the general pubhc (not to the onginal members of the Socretl, which caused a massive loss of approx RS I Billion to the Society) and as such thrs case is also drstrnguishable ,from the current case. The case -l of Muhammed Wasem (supra) a Pesharvar case rs distinguishable on its orvn facts-

Turning to the cases of Pre arrest bail in terms of malafide

53.It is norv well settled law that pre arrest batl ts an extraordrnary rehef and rs only avatlable in cases where there has been malafide on the part of the complainant or the pohce. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Rana Mohammed Arshad V Muhammad Rafique (PLD 2OO9 SC 427) which rvas more recentlv rerterated by the Supreme Court rn the case of Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State and I others (:2O i 6 r-CMR 2rJ5a)

5+ Onlv the burlder Mcharnrned RIaz of Falaknaz and hls nomlnees Muhammed Farooq, Wali Mohammed, Muhammed Anees and Mohammed Younis and his aider and abettor Afaq Khan Ghori have clarmed malahde on the basrs thert tht; mater ial ou record shorved that Mohammed Riaz was a bona ftde ptrrchaser and as such NAB had rncluded him and hrs nomtnees in the reference on account of malafides We do not accept sucli corltel1tioll as in our view it is apparent from the recbrcl that the society by selhng the land to him acted compldtel,l' rn violation of its by 1ar'vs and had he ancl nis nomitlees (partners) carrled out therr due drLge rrce properly they would have been aware of thrs This is Y more so since builder Mohammed Riaz was not a novice in the building industry. FIe had coustructed many comrnercta-l pro1ects allegeclly rn some cases illegally on government ianci and as such *'ould have known that he had to ex€rmrne the soclety's b;' lar.vs and constder what the actual

L2

t4l?

purpose of the society was and what lts land could be used for. Namely, to provrde affordable houstng to the members of the society and not to sell the soctety's lands to prtvate builders who would develop the same for the benefit of non members and sell lt to the general public for a huge profit. As ) such rn our vlew there'has been no malafide on the part of NAB in includrng these petitioners tn the reference.

55.Thus, on this ground,.alone both he and all the other petrtioners who had been granted interim pre arrest bail by various orders of this court deserve to have thelr pre arrest barl reca-lled.

56.Since there has been no malafide on the part of NAB we car-l now consider the case of each petrtioner (both pre arrest and post arrest) based on the material placed before us to see if there is sufficient material to connect each of the petittoners to the offense for whrch they have been charged as the I drstinctron between pre arrest ball and post arrest barl has now fallen awav on account of there berng no m a-lafides tn respect of the pre arrest batl cases

Modus operandi.

57 .We first need to consider what was the modus operandi of the Management o[ the Socrety rn rts tllegal activltres and the beneficianes (the builders) of this land scam' Namely' rllegally selling off the society's land to beneflciary builders at an under value or free of cost lo the detriment of the ortgrnal members so that the burlders could make colossal profits by illegally seliing the Socretl"s plots at market value to the general public.

Y 58. It appears that prror to the scam being carned out from 2004 onrvards the society's land had 1ay vacanl" for a iong period and trr parts lt was even betng encroached upon' Thus' it appears that the management of the socrety hatched a plan lnconnlvancewlththelandmafiatodisposeofthesoctety's land to the lancl mafia who wer-e the ulttmate beneficiaries Cz--

b9a

who could develop the same' and sell it on to the general public (non members of the society) for massive profits by I

I

iliegally ousting the original members of the society and then illegally appointing new mernbers of the society and thereby I defeating the objectives of th. co-op.rative society. That there were approx 358 original members of the society who had each been allotted plots and made payments in connection with the sarne as per approved lay out plan. In order to sell the society's precious land to the building mafia the management of the society illegally cancelled the allotment of the original allottees and through Zafar Saleem deceased who held the position of DG Works Sindh Workers Welfare Board (SWWB) replaced them with lower level employees of SWWB without either their knowledge or permission; having illegally ousted the original members and original aliottees the illegal management got approved a new lay out plan (getting rid of the amenity plot) whereby the land was converted mainly into residential and some commercia-l plots so that it could easily I be sold on to the builders as had been agreed in advance with the specific builders (Falaknaz -Muharnmed Riaz-and M/S Axis construction company-Syed Amir Aii Shah and Mahaba Builders-Muhammed Iqbal); the management through the new fake allottees (employees of the SWWB) then without their knowledge sold the plots to the builders it appears without payment being made to the society whereby the builders got the benefit of the free land and the management pocketed the money provided by the purchasers of the plots without paying a single rupee to any member of the society who the land was meant for building their houses on and had been originally allotted to them and on which they had made payments.

I 59. In an attempt to make the land scarn more understandable we will deal with it in the separate parts as

mentioned above.

A The illegal sale by the fake/illegal management and *"*U.."" of the society to the beneficiary builder of

L2

/-i?--l

Falaknaz Golden Pebbles (Mohammed Riaz) who was illegally sold/allotted lOO plots of society land upon which he built Falaknaz Golden pebbles aided and abetted by Afaq Ghori and Mohammed Riaz's nominees, Mohammed Farooq, Mohammed Younis, Mohammed Anees and Wali Mohammed who entered into an illegal agreement with the society dated 29-

L

60.Petitioner Sajid Ali Khan (post arrestl has been given a specific role in the reference at Para 3, 4,9 and 26 which read as under;

3.The investigation further revealed that the fake elected Managing Committee General Body illegally and malafidely approved new layout plan in which all categories of residential plots were illegally cancelled and all plots were converted into one category of 12O square yards each in order to sell / transfer the plots through fake allotment process.

4.That, during investigatior-r it was revealed that Accused No.2 Sajid Ali Khan issued an NOC dated 22,1L,2OO6 with regard to the lay out plan and forwarded the same to Accused No.B Muhammad \ Akhter Pathan. Further Accused No.2 cancelled the allotment of old and genuine allottees and allotted 541 plots in the names of SWWB employees ald others.

9.'l'hat, the investigation revealed that Sajid Ali Khan (Accused No,2) in connivance with the deceased accused Zafar Saleem and Accused No.L, 6 & 7 became members of the fake management committee as well as purported Honorary Secretary of the society. The Accused No.2 also got approved new revised layout plan in connivance with the Accused No.8 Muhammad Akhtar Pathan depriving the rights of the old genuine members and further cancelled their memberships and allotments illegally. Further Accused No.2 in connivance with the other accused persons made fake allotments in the names of fake members and illegally transferred the fake files of allotments and leased the precious plots of the society to the Accused No,g, 10, 11, 12 and 13 the nominees of the Accused No.4, on the basis of fake sales agreement.

x

26.Tlrat, the investigation also revealed Lhat deceased Zafar Saleem as Director SWWB in connivance with the Accused No.1,2,3,5 and others used the names of employees of the SWWB and others for the fake new membership and allotments and transfer of allotments of the plots of society. He managed fake

4zz elections in the yearl 2O06, and gpt elected frauduldntly Accused No.2 Sajid Ali Khan who abetted /laidetl Accused No.4 Muhammad Riaz owner of M/s.

Falaknaz and Accuied No.2O to usurp 436 x plots of the society and launch their illegal commercial project on these plots and received cash amount irom the amount of the purported sale consideration amount of 1OO x plots paid by M/s. Falaknaz to the I Accused No.7 through his nephew. The deceased Accused Zafar Saleem in connivance with the Accused No.3 and Accused No.27 managed the fake auction proceedings of lhe 26 x commercial plots of the society to dispose of these plots fraudulently'

61.The material on record reveals that petitioner Sajid Ali Khan was elected to the Management committee of the society on 06-08-2016. At this time there existed an approved layout plan catering for the existing members who had been allotted plots and made certain payments in respect of the same'

62.The material placed before us shows that the petitioner illegally got revised the lay out plan in connivance with other co-accused who have absconded. We have been shown a copy I of the revised layout plan which bears his signature which is not disputed. The object of revising the lay out plan was clearly to reduce the amenity plot area and maximize the residential areas to suit the requirements of the beneficiary builders namely FeJal<naz and later Axis construction company and M/s Marharba Buiiders who he was in connivance with.

63.Furthermore, when he joined the management committee there was a minimum 561 existing members if not 97 I members of the society (who are all absent from the

society's roie and members start from serial No' 972 who are the newly i1lega11y inducted members who illegaily replaced the original members) who had been lawfully allotted plots in I the society and who had paid monies towards the development of the society's land so that they could build upon the plots which had been allotted to them in accordance I with the purpose of the societY, ),r-

qz3

64.S.161 statemeht of PW Shah Mohammed Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society and the relevant byeiaws olthe I society reveal the procedure of members enrollment and procedure of membership cancellation which is as under:

"1. PROCEDURE OF MEMBERS ENROLMENT:

As per Bylaw No.7 (at page No.2) of the Pak Punjab Co- Operative Housing Society, member shail be elected by ^ the Committee providap. that all members shall belong to the former province o3t'frrr;.t and resident of Karachi (later amended to alow persons from Karachi only to join the society). Whenl any society is registered the management enrolled members as per provision of above mentioned Bylaw. and maintained a seniority list. As the record of the 'Pak Punj ab Co-operative Housing Society was not available in the Register Office as reported that the record of the membership / ailotment was in the possession of the management and not handed over/ submitted in the Registrar office to ascertain the factual position of the members/ allotments whether the management of the society enrolled the members and allotted plots were made according to law or not.

2. PROCEDURE OF MDMBERSHIP CANCELLATION:

As per byiaw No. 13 of the society a member may be I expelled from the society by the vote of not less thall two third of the members piesent and voting at a General Meeting of the societ5r on a motion. As per provision of Co-operative Socigties Act 1925 mentioned in 17-8, a society -ay recorir4end to the Registrar to expel from its membership a member who is a persistent defaulter of the society or who .commits any act prejudicial to the interest of the society. Provided that the management committee of the society shall after affording the member an opportunity of hearing place the matter before the General Body meeting and approval thereof shall be communicated'to the Registrar of the Society.

I

The Registrar may expel such a member from the society after affording him an opportunity of hearing.

The Registrar shall,. .before the expulsion order, determine the amoun! payable if any by the society to the member and may direct that the expulsion order would take the effect from the date of payment of the amount to such member or its deposit on the account of i Registrar.

The member shall be ceased to be member of the society from the date which the expulsion order of the Registrar takes effect, provided that the provision of the section shall not apply to a member of Housing Society who has Lz

q?-q

made full payment tewards cost of the land and the requisite Developmeht Charges.

The record of cancellation of membership is not available in the record and there is no provision cancellation of membership. The members may be expelled as the reasons as mentioned in the Act and bylaws of the society."

65.The material before us reveals that the membership of the original members of the society and their allotments were illegally cancelled by the p€titioner in connivance with other co-accused members and so called new members were illegally admitted to the society by the petitioner acting in connivance with some other co-accused.

66.The record reveals that the new members were all low1y paid employees working in the SWWB and their CNIC cards were obtained under fake pretences by the then DG Works SWWB ZaIar Safeem (now deceased) who unbeknown to the employees of the SWWB made them members of the society

I

and allotted plots to them based on the new lay out plan so that the management of the society could manipulate the sale of the plots to the builders.

67.The 5.161 Statement of PW Abid Hussain a hardware supervisor at SWWB is sufficient to illustrate this which is set out below for ease of reference:

" State ment U/s 161 Cr.PC of Abid Hus sain Ansari S/o Hamid Hussain Ansari Hardware Superviser Since 2OOS Sindh Workers WeI fare Board Karachi CNIC No.421O1-65O99 66-5 .R I o House N o.A -.J. Block-N, Nort h Nazima bad, Karachi, Mobile No. o300-2643014,

It is stated that he appeared on 25th Nov, 2015 before me at Sindh Workers Welfare Board Office' Main I Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi in connection with the lnvestigation against Younus Butt, Secretary Pak eunjab" Co-Opeiative Housing Society Karachi and others regarding non provision of possession of. plots to the allott"ees / Lembers of the society and selling the lana of society to the different builders He stated that he has neverbeen member (membership No'lO2O) or any type of concern/ interest in Pak Punjab Co-

qz,e

operative Housing Soeiety. Any type of transaction oi ptot No,1o4 in his name is not in his knowledge' Once, Zafar Saleem (Deceased), DG (Works), Sindh Workers Welfale Board required him to submit the CNIC for official works and he submitted the copy of his CNIC to the Zafar Saleem' Any file prepared on his name of the Pak Punjab Co-operative Housing is fake and fictitious. (bold added) l (

68.Thus, as part of the'modus operandi in order to illegally sell off the society's land at a vast profit the petitioner played an active role in illegally changing the original layout play so it would meet the requirements of the builders; illegally canceling the original members of the society and their allotments and putting in place "dummy" members of the society (unknowing lowly paid and often iiiiterate employees of the SWWB) who were allotted society plots at no cost so that these plots could be sold on at vast prolit by the management to the building mafia without their knowledge'

69.Another petitioner who was also a member of the society \ who played a role in this land scam mainly through making il1egal new members of the society without their knowledge so

that the land scam could easily be given effect to is petitioner Afzal Khan who has been given a specific role in the reference at Para 2 which reads as under:

"That, the investigation revealed that in Pak Punj ab booperative Housing Society 358 plots were the ,I.it"a to oiiginal /' genuine members ofAhmed' society' fio*.r.r, AcJused No.1 namely Abrar Cooperative the then Honorary Secretary of Pak Punjab ;;;;g socilty and Accused No'S namely Afzal ft u- fake member of the society in connivance *iif,"r, other illegally issued new share certilicates "".f, fake irembers, who were employees of .".off.a ""a Si,-rat', Wo.t .rs Welfare Board (SWWB)' Further a fake and illegai managing committee was elected I cimnrisine faie membErs through elections . under at of tvtirza Munir Baig (Accused No'6) and"'I"o..ii"lon Mirza Afzal Baig (Accused No'7)'

70.The record reveals that petitioner AfzeJ Khan who was of the an employee of SWWB enrolled himself as a member

L.

qzL

society on 03-09-2004 by actrng as chairman/ member wrth the connrvance of the H6norarl' secretary and then he by back datrng admitted at least two new membel's (Mr.Shahzade Mashr and Mr.Shaukat Mashi (both employees of SWWB) to the socrety on 31-08-2004 with his signatures whrch have not been disputed when he hrmself was not even

L

a member. The S.161 Statement of PW Shoukat Mashi set out below is sufficient to rllustrate thrs point;

"Statement U/S 161 Cr.PC of Shahzad Masih S/o Yaqoob Masih, Sv/eeper of Sindh Workers Welfare Board Karachi, CNIC No.4220l-6097321 R/o House No.332, Gali No.6 . KTC Depot. Kristin Town Korangi Karachi Mobile No.O31O-1 151649.

It is stated that he appeared on 25th Nov, 2015 before me at Sindh Workers Welfare Board Office, Matn Shahra-e-Paisal, Karachi in connectton with the Investrgation against Younus Butt, Secretary Pak Punjab Co-Operative Housing Society, Karachi and others regardrng non provisron of possession of plots to the allottees / members of the soclety and selling the Iand of socrety to the different burlders. He stated that once Zafar Sa-leem Ex-Director General (Works) SWWB I Board requrred hrs CNIC for allotrrrent of plots of any socretl, for Board employees, but after many years no any response was recetved. He neither listen the name of Pak Punjab Co-operattve Houstng Society nor became part of any transactron of PIot No.R-2 in his name as rvell as he has no concern regarding membership No.91B of the socretl'. He added that he has no concern rvrth the plots of the soctety and his name is used for the fake and fictitrous transactton"

71.Turnrng to the case of petttioner Muhammed Rtaz (Falaknaz Burlder),Muhammed Farooq, Wah Mohammed, Muhammed Anees and Mohammed Younrs who are the burlder and his nominees w'ho the 100 plots allegedly owned by SWWB emplovees were sold by the society through Sa3rd Khan vide agreement ddf,edt 29-09-2OO7 and petitioner Afaq { Khan Ghon who the norhjnees all gave therr special power of attorney to rn respect of the relrstration of the 100 plots'

72.In line wrth the plan the sale agreement between petitioner Mohammed Riaz and and petitroner Sajid Ali Khan makes it clear rn the {ecrtals that Sajid AIi Khan was

LZ

authorized by the members of the society to make the sa-le. Srnce as we have already noted the new members were ln T effect dummy members froin the lowly employed of SWWB who had no idea that dhey were members of the society and had been rllegally made members of the society the sale agreement is completely illegal as petltloner Sa3rd Khan had I absolutely no iawfui authonty whatsoever to sell the society's land Besides no authonty letter by the so called members of the soctety is available on record or traceable.

73.Petitioner Muhammed Rraz the purchaser would have known thrs by srmply dorng some basrc due dihgence by studying the by laws of the society and the concept of the soclety itself that the society was created to establish affordable hou srng for its members. Petttioner Mohammed Riaz had no lntention whatsoever to develop the land for the members of the society but rnstead to develop rt and sell rt on at the best price possrble to benefit himseif. We find his claim \ of making advertrsements in lrttle known newspapers simply an attempt to camouflage his rllegal actions. Thls is especially so as rf he would have done his proper due drligence he would have known that the members of the society and allottees were a,ll dummy members who were lowly pard employees of the SWWB u,ho drd not even know they were members and as such could not have .""po.ri".l to the advert as so far as they were concerned rt did not concern them. Llkewtse under its by laws the society had no authority to sell the society's land to a builder for commercral purposes which would exclude the members of the Socrety. As per the agreement petitioner Muhammed Rtaz was entitled to give the plots in the name of hrs nomrnees. This begs the questlon why? The obvlous ans\.'er is that l-re u'anted to remain behind the scenes I because as a notorious developer (as per lnqulry notificatlon and rnquiry report as menttoned below) he did not want to be seen to be rnvolved drrectly,rn the rllegal project. Even the nominee petltloners gave ai spectal power of attorn ey to petltloner Afaq Khan Gho\i in order to further distance q

L-128

3t

petitroner Mohammed Rraz from the transaction In effect he was trying to hrde be6rnd the equivalent of a so called corporate veil whrch we have now iifted.

74.The illegalities and crrminahty between Sajid Khan and the petrtioner ts further shown b1, the agreement whereby an L initial amount RS 6i,000,000.00 was to be pard to the society by petitioners Mohammed Riaz for the 100 p1ots. The recerpts show the name of Mrrza Astf Baig who ls not a member of the society let alone a member of the managing commrttee. The recerpts are signed by Mirza Asif Barg and are witnessed by petrtioner Afzal Khan whose case we have already discussed. The cheques are made piecemeal in the name of Mrrza Asif Baig and are not pay orders ald there is no evidence that these cheques were ever paid into any bank account or were encashed. These payments have also not been shown in any accounts of the society and certainly no dummy member of the society received any amount for their plot. x It rs inconceivable that petttioner Mohammed Riaz could have paid such cheques to Mirza Asif Baig, who was not a member of the management committee and had no authority to glve a receipt or recer\/e the cheques on behalf of the socrety, from accounts not connected wrth Mohammed Riaz. Thrs in our view shows that the transaction was a complete sham and was desrgned to benefit both Mohammed Riaz and hrs nominees and members of the society such as Sajid Ali Khan and Azfal Khan. The record clearly shows that the nomrnees received between them the 100 plots who then reglstered them through Afaq Khan Ghori who ivas their attorney and was part and parcel of the scam which he was fully involved in through the builder Mohammed Riaz.

{ 75. Srgnifrcantly, after such illegal sale an rnquiry was established to look rnto the matter by the Government of Stndh (GOS) Co-operatron Department vlde noticatron clated 24-O3-2O14 rvhrch reads as under:

Lz

qz9

,GOVERNMEN'T

OF SINDH COOPERATION

DEPARTMENT

Karachi, dated the 24th Mardn,2Ol4.

NOTIFICATION

No.SO(C-i)1(12)l2006 (Pt-t): In exercise of powers conferred Under Section-6(1) of Sindh Cooperative Housing Society Authority Ordinance t982. l, Ali Ahmed Lund, Secretary to Government of Sindh, Cooperation I Department/Chairman Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority do hereby appointed Mr. Muhammad Azeem, Assistant Registtar Cooperative Societies-IV, Karachi, as Enquiry Officer to conduct Enquiry into the affairs of M/s Pak Punjab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Karachi. Under Section 6(1) of Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance 1982, including following allegation:

1)They sold the society land to Muhammad Riaz Memon owner of M/s Falak Naz Builder, They are selling illegally the plots of society in shape of bungalows. The builder is not supposed to sell society plots as project. M/s Falak Naz Builder is a land mafia type builder and his 9O%o projects are constructed on Railway Department land, government land and factitious ' title and society land of I innocent society allottees, (bold added)

I

He shall submit the Enquiry report within 07 days frdm the issuance of this Notification.

ALI AHMED LUND

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

No. SO(C- 1)l(12) l2OO6(Pt-l)l 186. Karachi dated 24*,March,2014

76.The inquiry officer in his report in his conclusions and recommendations found as under:

CONCLUSION

The society had been allotted 24 Acres Land in Sector No.24-A, in KDA Scheme No.33 at Super High Way, Gulzar-e-Hijri, Karachi by Deputy Commissioner (East) Karachi on behalf, the sale agreement between Govt and the society was execurted on 21 .09.1977 .

L

The management o[ society in its meeting held on 25.8.2OO7 accorded approval to N{/s. Falaknaz Properties to launch Constrr.rction Scheme of houses at their own leased plots.

As discussed in forgoing para M/s Falak Naz Builder was authorized by the management of

u30

the society to launch their Housing Project on the society's Land in contravention of the Bylaws of the society. Such instance of the management of the society puts the society and its members in deep trouble. It is duty of the management of the society to restrict such elements like Falak Naz builders and others for their activitie's in the larger interest of the society and its members.(bold added) It is worthwhile to point out that last General body meeting of the society was held on 18.12.2011, thereafter no General body meeting of the society has so far been held in contravention of section 12

I

of the Cooperhtive Societies Act 1925 as well as Byelaw 37 of the Bylaws of the society. [t reveals that the bu3iness of the society including Election of the oflice bearers is managed without approval and justification.

A huge amount of Rs.23,165,O31/- has been spent under the head of internal development but its detail such as publication in news papers, prequalification, Quotations / Tenders' measurement book, work orders, agreement with contractors and completion certificates has neither been provided to the Govt' ). Auditors nor to the under signed for verification.

The position stated needs justification for incurring the said massive amount under the head of development.

It also has been observed that as per Govt' Audit report for the yea-r ending 30.6.2013, societ5r has 547 members/share holders, hence it should have received Rs.27,35O/- against 547 shares of Rs.50/- each. But the balance sheet of the society shows quite deferent amount Rs. 1,82,000/- under this head needs justification. (bold added)

RECOMMENDATION

In view of the above findings it is proved that Falak Naz Builder was authorized by the management of the society to launch their Housing Project on the society's land in contravention of the Byelaws of the society. Such instance of the management of the a society puts the society and its members in deep trouble. It is duty of the management of the society to restrict such elements like Falak Naz Builders and others for their activities in the larger interest of the society and its members. Further the General body meetrng of the society has not been held since 201 1, the entire business of the society has managed without approval and justification. It is there fore q

t4

recommended that the, society may be super ceded as required untier sectio n 612l Sindh Cooperative Housing Societies ordinance, 1982.(bold addedf (Muhammad Azeem) Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies-lV/lnquiry Ofhcer, Pak Punjab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi I 77. PW Muhammed Azem has also given a 5.161 statement to the same effect along with his report which also high iights these illegal i activities of the management committee in connivance with FalakNaz Builder (Mohammed Riaz and his nominees). Such illegalities which were committed by al1 the accused in the reference is further supported by the S.161 Statements of PW's Shah Muhammed Ujian the registrar of Co-operative society III Karachi and Mazhar Hussain Sub Inspector co-operative Society III Karachi

78.We are of the view that the case of the co-accused t Khudad Khan who was granted bail by this course vide order dated 08-05-20 17 is distinguishable from the case of the petitioners and does not.stapd on the same footing since he only appears to have been the sub registrar who registered the sub leases pursuant to the special powers of attorney given by petitioners. Whereas the above mentioned petitioners were a-long with Mohammed Riaz an intricate and essential part of the land scam, which they would have been fully aware of, as is seen by their becoming his nominees under the agreement in an attempt to conceal the true ownership of the land. Thus the rule of consistency is not applicable to their case.

79.There is no question of there being any pick and choose a in respect of members of the management committee who have not been included in the reference as either they were "dummy members" as indicated earlier or played no active role whatsoever in any of the illegaiities. Petitioner Sajid Khan as per the record also signed many new illegal allotment orders and as such his involvement and finger prints in the :. '! ,

q3L

commission of the crime. are,we11 made out by the material on record.

I

BO. Thus based on thg above discussibn there has been no malafide on the pa,rt of NAB and in our view prima facie there is sufficient material on reiprd to link the petitioners to the ]l offense for which they have been charged and as such the petition for post arrest bail of Sajid Ali Khan is dismissed and the pre arrest bail g.at iea to petitioners Afzal Khan' Mohammed Riaz, Muhammed Farooq, Wali Mohammed' Muhammed Anees, Mohammdd Younis and Afaq Khan Ghori tl is recalled with immediate effegt'

Election Officers.

81.Petitioners Mritza Afzal Baig and Mohammed Hamid Riaz and Mirza Munir Baig were all alleged to have been involved in holding fake elections to the Managing committee of the society at various times' Mirza Munir Baig who was an t election officer has aiready been granted bail vide order dated 24-04-2017 by this court so the question arises whether the role of the other election officers is on the same footing as Mirza Munir Baig and as such the ruie of consistency will apply to them.

a2. We find that the role of petitio ner Mirza Afzal Baig is not on the same footing as Mirza Munir Baig and as such the rule of consistency does not apply to him. This is because there is material to show that he received unexplained money via his next of kin which was unexplainably paid into his next of kins bankaccountandthenextofkinwasalsoillegallyallotteda plot of the society without any evidence of payment' As such it appears that Mirza Afzal'Betg received payments for holding L fake management comrrdttee elections' In this respect the 3.161 statement of PW' Syed Ali Imran the manager of is standard chartered bank iis relied on' As such we find there the sufficient material on record to prima facie connect petitioner to the commission of the offense for which he has t, /"

u3z

been charged and as such his pre ariest bail 1S hereby recalled with immediate effect'

83.We find that the role of petitioner Muhammed Hamid Riaz is also not on the same footing as Mirza Munir Baig and A as such the rule of consistency does not apply to him' This is because with respect to Mohammed Hamid Riaz as we will come to below when dealing with the case of petitioner Farooq Shahid it is clear that he played a role in the so called election of the fake managing committee in 2008 of which Farooq Shahid was a member. The fakeness of this committee is shown from the S.161 statements of PW Aurangzaib (who rvas

purportedly the President of the Management Committee)' of Muhammed Ali and Muhammed Adnan two other members the fake management committee who have all stated that they

were SWWB employees and had nothing to do with the society let alone its malagement committee' As such petitioner t Muhammed Hamid Riaz was fully involved in arranging the fake election of the management committee in 2008 which then i1legal1y sold over 336 plots of the society to Syed Amir A1i Shah which material was probably not brought to the attention of the learned court when it granted bail to Mirza Munir Baig, another election oflicer involved in the 2006 . election, when it granted him bail vide its order dated 24.04.2017 as such we find sufficient material on record to

connect the petitioner Mohammed Hamid Riaz to the offense for which he has been charged and as such his pre arrest bail

is recalled with immediate elfect'

B Turning to the illegal sate by the management of the society- to the beneficiary builder, of - Premier n"e""LV Villa's of 336 illegaily sold/allotted plots of society" land through initiatty Syed Aamir. Ali Shah who alegedly later entered into a Joint venture *ith Moh.*med Iqbat and his- nominees "gr""rrr"rit Iviohammed lbrahim, Mst Farida, Fasial Waseem' Mohammed Aslam, Mohammed Arif, Mohammed Jawaid and Mohammed Arif'

u3q

84.The concerned member of the management committee of the society who acted illegally in this illegal allotment of society land to the building mafia is petitioner Farooq Shahid (post arrest) who has been given a specific role in the reference at Para 10 which reads as under:

"That, the investigation further revea-ied that Farooq Shahid (Accused No.3) in connivance with the Accused No.2, 6 and 16 got himself elected as Secretary of the Society through unopposed fake elections. The accused No.3 became illega.l Secretary of the Society and transferred fake allotments to the Accused No.17, lB, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and leased the plots of the society in their names. The Accused No.3 further conducted managed and fake auction of the commercial plots of the society in connivance with the deceased accused Zafar Saleem and Accused No.27 as representative of Cooperative Department and leased the plots of the society in the name of Accused No.28.

85.It is true that Farooq Shahid only became a member of t the Managing committee oI the society on 22-07 -2OOB and as such there is no material on record to show that he played a part in changing the approved 1ay out plan; ousting the old members of the society; introducing the "dummy" SWWB members in to the society. However he would have known that the other members of the Managing committee were "dummy members" and in effect he was the "placeman' of Sajid Ali I(han on the illegal managing committee whose role was to continue with the illegal sale of the society's plots to the building mafia in this case being petitioner Syed Aamir Ali Shah who he illegally allotted 336 plots of the society to and who (Syed Amir Ali Shah then allegedly entered into a joint venture agreement with Mohammed Iqbal (Owner partner of M/ S Marhaba Builders and his nominees/partners petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim, petitioner Mst. Farida), petitioner Faisal Waseem, petitioner Mrihammad Aslam, petitioner Muhammad Jawaid, petitioner Muhammad Arif Siddique, petitioner Muhammad Nadeem Khan and petitioner M uhammad Arif Bashir.

ht

I qze

86.The fact that Farolql Shahid was heading a fake and "dummy" Management tt eommittee is shown by the 5.161 statements of PW Aurarigzaib (who was purportedly the President of the managing committee), Muhammed AIi and Muhammed Adnar-r two other members of the fake management committee who have all stated that they were

L

SWWB employees and had nothing to do with the society let aione its management committee. The S.161 statement of the so called President Aurangzaib is set out beiow to iilustrate the point

"Statement U/ s 161 Of Cr.PC of Auranszeb s/o Muhammad Alam. Naib Oasid lSince 19951. Sindh Workers Welfare Board Karachi CNIC No.425O1- 8908560-9. R/o Manzoor Kirvana Store, Bilal Colonv Landhi No,22 Karachi Mobile N o.O34l-2248O21. It is stated that he appeared on 16rh Nov, 2015 before rne at 797 15, PRCS Building Cantonrnent Karachi in connection rvith the Investigation against Younus Butt, Secretary Pak Punjab Co Operative Housing Society Karachi amd others regardir-rg non provision of possession of plots to the allottes / members of the society and selling the land of society to the different buiiders. He stated that he has never been member or any type of concern / interest in Pak Punjab Co- Operative Housing Society, Any type of transactions on my name is not in my knowledge. Once Zafar Saleem, DG (Works), Sindh Workers Weifare Board required to submit the CNIC to him for a registration of a society for Board's employees and he gave the copy of his CIYIC to him. On the directions of Zafar Saleem, he and other staff members participated in an event of a society in a I Hall opposite to the Radio Pakistan Karachi. He stated that he has never been member or any type of concern / interest in Pak Punjab Co-Operative Housing Society. Any type of transactions on his name is not in his knowledge. He added that he is at illiterate person cannot recognize and give his version on any documents of the society. Any file prepared on his name of the Pak Punjab Co- Operative Housing is fake and fictitious, (bold, italics and underlining added) Sanver Ahmed Khan Assistant Director/lO NAB Karachi."

As Honorary Secretary of the society and a member of the managing committee the petitioner Farooq Shahid would

q36

I

have been fully awar,e of the bye laws of the society and wouid have known fuii well the objects and purposes of the socie[r. Namely to provide affordable housing to the members of the society. As such with this knowledge it was not possible for him to sell/allot any plots to any building company without the building company constructing houses for the members of t the society. He could not legally have sold the society's land in order to construct projects for the general public yet hand in giove with the buiiders he did so. It also beggars belief that someone holding his position of seniority and responsibility in the society did not know that all the new allottees were fake members from the SWWB and the original members had been illegally ousted.

88.The relevant Bye laws and laws which the petitioner would have been fully aware of are set out below which we wiil consider by considering basic concepts such as for example what is a co-operative Housing society? And what is \ its purpose?

89.As per The Co-operative Societies Act 1925 under S.3 (4) which is the definition section of the aforesaid Act "a Housing societ5i mea-ns a society formed with the object of providing its members with dwelling houses on conditions to be determined by its by laws"

90.Some of the relevant by laws of the society in this case read as under:

As per by-laws No.2 of the Pak Punjab Cooperative Housing Society, the objective of the society was explained as to carry on the trade of building and of buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with coopeiative principles and all objects specified in its bylaws.

As per Bye-lau' No.7 of the Society, member shall be elected by the Committee provided that all members shall belong to the former province of Punj ab and (now amended to residing in Karachi onlv) residing in Karachi- q

q31

As per Bye-law No.13 and provision of cooperattve societies Act 1925 mention in 17-B, society may recommend to Ri:gistrar to expel a member from his memberstlip o.t the basis of if he is persistent defaulter of the society or who commits any act prejudlcial to the interest of the society, provided that the management committee of the society A shail after affording the member an opportunity of hearing, place the matter before the General Body Meeting and approval thereof shall be communicated to the registrar of the society.

In every year, President and 1/3ra Committee shall retire and according to the Bye-1aw No.a7(B) retiring Presi{ent and Committeemen shall be eligrble for re;blection. The office bearers of the shal1 'be elected every year after the "o-i"ty General Body Meeting.

I

As per Bye-law No.12 of the Pak Punj ab Coopirative Housing Society Limited Karachi, no members of the society shall exercise the right of member unleSs and until hold six fully paid shares in the society and makes allotments of the piots to its members on the basis of seniority list \ maintained by the societY.

The Chairman preside managing committee meeting and secretary records the proceedings of the meeting. Secretary shall prepare and send return require to be made to the Registrar. Secretary shall have charge of doJuments and other papers of the society and shall keep the accounts in such manners as committee direct as per bylaws No'61 (page No,14) of Pal< Punjab Cooperative Housing Socie[y Limited Karachi. Secretary shall in all thir-gs act in the discharge under the direction -control of the committee as per the Bylaws and No.62 and all the documents and receipt received on behalf of the society shall be signed by the Secretary and one member of the managing committee. (bold added)

91.Thus, it is obvious that the purpose of the Punjab Housing Society was to provide affordable housing (on a co- operative basis) for its original members and not to oust those

original members and incluct dummy members and sell off the society's land through those clummy members to the publi c buitding mafia to construct properties for the general

I

d

i 4-r3B

4I

(as opposed to society members) to be sold at market rate whilst depriving the original members of affordable housing especially as those original rnembers had made payments in respect of their allottments.

ll

92.Notwithstanding the'knowledge of the fake Management / committee of which he was a part and the knowledge that the society was meant to build affordable property for its original members Farooq Shahid iilegally made 336 allotments to non members who were builders who were going to construct property on the society's land and se11 it in the open market to non members for a massive profit. His acts (and plan along with the other members of tire Management committee and co-accused builders ) were completely illega1. For example, there are on record various transfer orders from fake a-llottees to Syed Aamir Ali Shah A;d Mohammed Ibrahim (nominee of Mohammed Iqbal) both of whom are builders under the signature of Farooq Shahid importantly and significantly l (as we shall see later) dated 27-tl-2OO9, and to Syed Aamir Ali Shah and petitioner Mohammed Arif s/o M.Bashir dated 27-ll-2OOB. Since the a1lottee did not exist, the transfer was being made to builders (a1so co-accused in this land scam) and no payment was received from the ailotment and as such Farooq Shahid was simply continuing with the illegal practices of the former management committee member Sajid Khan whose bail we have already dismissed earlier in this order. There is no material on record to show that arty money was actually received for these allotments or paid to the society. Examples of such fake allottees who supposedly transferred their allotments to Syed Amir Ali Shah are shown through the S. 161 statements of Sarfraz Ahmed and Zahid Hussain. Sarfaz Ahmed's S. 16 I statement is reproduced ]l below for ease of reference;

" Statement U/s 161 of Cr'P.C. of Sarfara z Ahmed Khan s/o. Sultan Ahmed Khan, Sub-Engineer of Sindh Workers Welfare Board Karachi CNIC No.42 401-75722a5-3 of Sindh Workers Welfare Board Karachi Address: 68 Sec tor D-3, S aeedabad,

q31

Ealdia Colony, Baldia Town, Karachi Mobile No.O333-21884O4.

It is stated that he appeared on 16.72.2O16 before me at 197 15, PRCS Building Cantonment Karachi in connection with the Investigation against Younus Butt, Secretary Pak Punjab Co-Operative Housing Society Karachi and others regarding non provision of possession of plots to the allottees/ members of the 1 society and selling the. land of society to the different builders.

He stated that he is employee of the Sindh Workers Welfare Board, Karachi and appointed in 2OO4, His name as member/allottee of the Pak Punjab Co- Operative Housing Society Karachi is misused he and has never been part of the society. He disowned about any transaction of the society plot made done on his name. l

93.Such illegalities which were committed by all the accused in the reference is supported by the S.161 Statement of Shah Muhammed Ujjan the registrar of Co-operative society III Karachi and \lazhar Hussain Sub Inspector co- operative Society III Karachi and inquiry officer Muhammed Azeem.

94.In addition petitioner Farooq Shahid in his capacity as Honorary Secretary of the society signed a receipt of a huge amount of money from,' builder Mohammed Riaz none of which funds have bee4 accounted for in the society's accounts nor any proof of payment to the any of the allottees is available either with him or on record. Such doubtful receipt further shows the illegal actions of the part of Farooq Shahid as he wouid have known full well under the by laws that the society had no power to se11 the land to Mohammed Riaz who was the builder,which he deliberately ignored as he was hand in glove with t{im throughout the illegal enterprise having replaced S4id Khah on the tnanagement committee as his place man so that the illegalities could continue unabated and unobstructed.

95.Thus, we are of thc. view for a-11 the reasons discussed above that prima facie th':re is suflicient material to connect petitioner Farooq Shahid to the commission of the offense for

L?

4qo 4i

which he has been charged drld as such the post arrest bail of Farooq Shahid is hereby dismissed.

I

96.Petitioner Syed Aamir Ali Shah as admitted by his counsel u,as a business man and owner of Axis Construction Company and was the bidther in law of Zafar Saleem (who t was DG Works Sindh Workers Welfare Board (SWWB)f . The same Zafar Saleem who had been instrumental in ousting the original members of the society and replacing them with lowly paid and oftdn illiterate members of SWWB without their knowledge 6r consent which in effect as with Mohammed Riaz's, Case (Falaknaz) as mentioned above was paving the way for the sale of the society's land to builders. According to learned counsel for the petitioner it was even his father rn law Zafar Saleem who had encouraged him to invest tn the society's land for 1l construction purposes as it would be a good business opportunity for him.

97.The petitioner Syed Aamir Ali Shah along with co- accused Mohammed Iqbal (Owner partner of M/S Marhaba Builders and his nominees/partners petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim, petitioner Nrlst. {arida, petitioner Faisal Waseem,

I

petitioner fuluhammad Aslam, petitioner Mtrhammad Jawaid, petitioner Muhammad Arif Siddique, petitioner Muhammad Nadeem l(han and petitioner Muhammad Arif Bashir have been given a specific role in the reference at Para 20 which reads as under:

"The investigatiorr further revealed that Syed Amir Ali Shah (Accused No.17), Muhammad lqbal (Accused No.1B), Pluhammad. Ibrahim (Accused No.19), Mst. Farida (Accused No.20), Faisal Waseem (Accused No.21), Muhammad Aslam (Accused No.22), Muharnmad Jawaid (Accused No.24) Muhammad Arif Siddique (Accused No.23i, Muhammad Nadeem Khan (Accused No.26) and Muhammad Arif Bashir (Accused No.25) in connivance with the Accused No.3 got transferred the fal<e files of allotments and leased the plots of the society in their names. Later on, they as owners / partners of M/s. Marhaba Builders, launched a illegal commercial project namely

qq\

Premier Regency Villas on the land / Plot of the society and sold the plots to the general public and earned millions of rupees".

98.The case of the petirioner Syed Amir Ah Shah rs that he bought the Iand and then er-rterecl into a joint venture { agreemeDt lvrtlr Muhammed Iqbal and his nominees (co- accused) vrho would carry out the constructton of tl-re land and tn orcler to secure thelr positron petitloner Muhamrned Iqbal and his nom,.nees (marnll' lamtly mer:r):er s) had the plots put tnto iherr Soint natnes along wrth Syed Amir Alt Shah rn order to secure thelr Interest and thrs ts bourn out through a j ou'rt venture agreenlent entered into between them dated 07-0,1-2009

gg . hr our vten, this stance s completely belied by th e

I

material on record. Syed Arrrrr A1i Shah rvas the il'legal transferee oI the 336 plots and became therr ov"'ner in his name and tirat of hts nonlrtees. There ls no r..:cord lhat the socretv or arry member of the socrety rccetved any payment ln respect of tl-re plots rvhich r','ere sold b1' fake allottees through Farooq Sl-rahtd as indicated above when the case of Farooq Shahrd u,as dealt with.

100.Importantly and significantly as noted above tn the case of Farooq Shahld who rvas actlng 1n connivartce with Syed Amir Ali Shah and Mohamraed Iqbal and their nominees/ partners a number of fake allotments had been transferred to them on 27-11-2008. Thus there reliance on a joint venture agreement dated 07-04-2009 is shattered Thrs rs because the plots r,vere alreadY berng transferred into thetr joint names before the jornt venture agreement was entered into. Thus. Lhe dea,1 had already Lreen done between Farooq { Shahid, Syed Amrr Ali Shah, Mohammed Iqbal ald their nominees 'n e1l tn advance and the Joint venture agreement \^IaSonl}enteredlntolateraSanattempttocamouflagetheir illegal activrttes and evcn otherr'vise was NOT a sale agreement between Syed Aamrr Ali Shah and the soclety but an q

agreement regulatrng the tconstructlon arraltgements between Syed Aarnrr Ah Shali and Muhammed Iqbal and his nomlnees. Liker,vrse the aileged payments that rn,ere made are no tvhere to be fou,nd on the records of the society and obvionsly could not have been passed orr to fake allottees.

101.Furthermore, Syed Amir Ali Shah and Mohammed Iqbal were experienced builclers and had been in the profession for many years. Lil<e Mohammed Riaz of Falaknaz they were not novices. .Ihey knerv full weil that they cor-rld not put ull a collmercral development on the Socrety's land wirhout provrclrng the accornmodatlon to the members of the socrety As it was they pard nottrrng for the land and rntencled to scll or.r therr constructton to the general pubhc for a massive profrt. All the partners/ nomrnees of the perrtioner builders (Syed Aamrr Ah Shah and Mohammeci Iqbal) Jrar-,e beerr grven the optron to surrender the plots,"r,hich lvere tllegalh' accluired rn therr names !\,,tthout DavmL.nt horr"'ever none have chosen to do so,

102.For the reasons discussed above rve are ol.the vrera, that there ts pnina facte sufficrent materral on recor d to connect the petrtior-rer Syed Aamir Ah Shah along with co_accused Mohammed Iqbal (Or,vner par.tner of M/S fuIarhaba Burlders and hrs n ominees/partners petitioner Muhamrnad Ibrahinr, petitroner Mst Farrda, petttioner Faisal Waseem, petitioner Muharrmad Aslam, petrtioner Muhammad Jawaid, petltloner Muhamrnad Anf Srclciique, perltloner Muhammad Nadeem Khan, ar: ci petrttoner Muhammad Anf (post arrest) s/o Muhammad Basl-rir to the commissron of tl-re offense for r,r,hich they have been charged rhrough their connrvance wrth Farooq

I

Shahrd the so called illegal honorary secretary of the socrety. As such the pre arrest ba1ls of all the aforesard petrtroners are hereby recalled and the post arrest barl petrtron of Muhammad Arif sorr of Muharnmed Bashir rs dismissed except in the case of Mst Farida w/ o Muhammed yousuf h

qq3

accused No.20 who is ar-r elderly lady who is wheel chair bound who seems !o have been unfatrly roped into this matter bv her fam ily without her.knowledge who as an exceptional case largely on humanrtarian grounds pre arrest bail rs confirmed on the same terms and condrtrons.

C. Turning to the illegal sale by the management of the society through an illegal auction of 25 commercial plots belonging to the society being Mohammed Younis, Adnan (on Baiu and Mohammed Amin,

103.Petitioners Moharned Younis and Mohammed Amin have been given a specific role rn the reference at Paras 21 to 23 which reads as under;

"2 1.That, the investigation further revealed that Muhammad Younus Baioch (Accused No.27) as representative of Cooperative Department arded Accused No.3 and deceased Accused Zafar Saleem to conduct purported meeting of the auction committee to dtspose of 26 commercral plots of the society fraudulently.

22.ThaL, during investtgatron tt ts also revealed Adnan (Accused No.28) and Muhammad Amrn (Accused No.29) rn connivance lvith the deceased accused Zalar Saleem, Accused No.3 and Accused No.27 usurped 13 commercial plots by each of the society through fake process of auction,

23.That the rnvestigatron revealed that Muhammad Amin (accused No.29) in conntvance r.viLh the deceased accused Zafar Saleem, accused No.3 and accused No.27 usurped 13 commercial plots of ttre socretl, through fake process of auctron."

104.Based on the record of ttre auction produced by the NAB we are in no dor-tbt that the auctlon was fal<e, Three of the srx alleged attendees of the so called auctton dated 05-11-2009 as per brdders attendance sheet have stated that the auctlon t process was rn effect a charade and they' did not attend any such auction. Namely, Farl-rat Rasheed, Mehmood Daud Vohra ald Am.lad Air. The S.161 statement of Farhat Rasheed is set out belorv for ease of reference h

q Ltq

"lt is stated that he appear-ed on 24th Nov, 20 15 before me at 197 15, PRCS Building Cantonment Karachi in conr-iection witir the lnvestigation against Younus Butt, Secretary Pak Punjab Co-Operative Housing Society I(arachi and others regarding non provision of possession of plots to the allottes / members of the i;ociet1, and selling the land of society to the different buiiders.

{ He stated that Zafar Saleem (Deceased) was his friend and he advised to participate in balloting of plots cf the l-air lrunjal, Co-Oper-r-ti';;e liousing' As per ad.lrise of Zalar Saleern for participation in bali,.'tir;g, hr; is,sued pay o:'Ccr of Rs.6,OO,OOO/- in tavou.I: oI' Pak Punjab Co-Operative l{ousing Society from his bank Starrdard Chartered, Khayaban-e- l'anreem, Defence, Karachi and the pay order was lrandecl over to Zafar Saleem, but after some days he returned tlle sarne arrd no sale / purchase transaction was made on his name. He is neither :nernber nor has any plot in the Pak Punjab Co- Opr:rativc Housing Society. As the documents pertairr to the auctions process of the 26 x commercial plots of the society shown to him, he completely denied participation in the bidding ptoclss and mentioned that his signatures orr these bidding <locuments are forged. (hold aclCed) ,:":'Jl"l31];;3,5iil ; : ., : NABKarachi"

105.'lhe Chaiiman of the auction cornmittebtalso was Farooq Shahici whose petition for post arrest bail we have already turned ' down earlier ih this order and' in addition also deserves to be turned dcwn for his iole in conducting a fa}<e auction in order to dispose of 25 commercial plots of the society's' land to favorites at an undet' value for which no reserve 'price was even set rvhich itself alone shows the connivance and malafides behind the whole sham auction process.

.L 106. Interesting Muhammed Rafique who was successful at theauctionhasnotbeenarrayedasanaccused.Accordingto the IO this is because he has been unable to trace him out despite his best efforts. The Mohammed Adnan who has also member is signed on the attendance sheet in his capacity as post NOT the same Adnan who has already been granted

ls qqt

arrest ball by this court. ; Apparently like so many others he appears to be an rlliteratl employee of the SWWB'w'ho simply srgned the attendaruce sheet without kno',ving of its significance. Co-accused Mr. Younis Baloch the Government representative u'ho signed che fake sheet to justrfy the fake auction has already had his pre arrest bail recalled by this court and he has absconded.

1O7. However notrvithstanding the above slnce the co- accused No.28 Adnan as referred to ln para 106 above whose role in connection with rhe auction rs similar to that of Muhammad Amin has already been granted ba1 by this court vide its order dated 24-04-2017 u'hrch NAB has not appealed and as such based on the rule of consrstencv the pre arrest bail granted to Muhammed Amin is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condltlons.

D Turning to the illegal sale by accused No.3O Umair Tariq (absconder| a member of the society who illegally allotted plots to petitioners Fahad Ahmed and Shabaz Ahmed.

108.Both the petrtroners Fahad Ahmed and Shahbaz Ahmed along wrth Umair Tariq (absconder) have been gtven a specrfic role in the reference at Para's 24 and.25 read as under' "r'l-irch

24.Accused No.30 Umair Tariq is a lake member and purported office bearer of ttre socretv, Ieased plots of the society to the Accr.rsed No.31 and 32.

25.T1-rat, the rnvestigation revealed that S1'ed Fah ac-l Ahmed (Accusecl No.3 i) Shahbaz At.rmed (Accused No.32) & Ar-rila Ai3az (Accused No.33) usurped the plots 11r connrvance wlth Accusecl No 2 ancl 30, the rllegal ofllce bearer of the soctety.

109.The record shox,s that the plots in questlon ri'ere rllegally allottecl b1' petitioner Sajid Khan to Fahad Ahmed and Shahbaz Ahmed s,l-rose posr arrest barl rve have already disrrrissed earlier in tl-irs order.

110.The plots rrt question \\'ere amenlty plots atld under no crrcumstalces whatsoever coltld thev have been allotted lbr

qqL

t resldential or commerclal p,ir,rrposes u,hrch both the pettttoners would have been well "*ofl of. There rs no material on record to show that rhey made any payment for the plots or that the soclety recerved ary monel. for the sale of nerther plots nor have the petitioners been able to produce such proof of payment. The petitroners havc refused to surrender the plots.

In our vier'v they are qulte ctearly beneficiaries of the land scam usurping valuable and precrous land of the society rn cor'tnlvance wrth petrtloner Sajrci l{har-r and absconder Umair Tarrq.

I 1 l. Thus ln our vre\\r there rs suffr.:rent materlal on record to connect thern ro the offense for rvhrch they have been charged and as such therr pre arrest bail rs recalled r,vrth immediate effect.

In summary.

1 12. Pre arrest bail is recalled with immediate effect in I respect oft

l.N4uhammed Riaz 2.Afzal l{han 3 Mrrza Afzal Barg 4.Muhammed Farooq 5 Muhammed Younus 6.Muhammed Anees 7 WaL Muhammed ,

8.Afaq Khan Gltorr 9.Muhammed Hamrd Rraz 10.Syed Amir Ali Shah I l.N4uhammed Iqbal l2.Muharnmed Ibrahim 13.Faisal Waseem 14.Mr-rhammed Aslam l5.Muhammed Anf s/o Muhammed Siddrq l6.Muhammed Jawaid 17.Fahad Ahmed lB.Shahbaz Ahmed a Pre arrest bail is confirmed in respect ofi

1 . Mst Farrda w/o Muhammed Yousuf 2 Muhammad Amin

Post Arrest Bail is dismissed in respect of: k-

t' qql

1.Sajid Ali Khan 2 Farooq Shahid

3.Muhammed Arif son of urh med Bashtr.

U

I1^ JU

{ CHIE JU Ctr