Adil Hayat Akhtar (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

6r

IN THE HIGH COUR T OF SINDH AT I(ARACHI

I'resenh NIr. I us ticc Nlolntnnm d Korim l(hqn Aslm I Mr. Iustice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi.

CIT. ACCOUNTABILITY APPEAL NO.15 OF 2OO1

APP('ll'1111 Acli[ t{ayat Akhtar sorr of Muhamrnad Akhtar Ansari, tl-rrough Mr. Muharnmatl Mushaffy, Ad voca tc.

Responcleuts/ Statc NAU througlr Mr. R.D. Kalhoro, Special Prosccutor, NAB

Date of l-rearing: 07.09.2020

Datt of anrlouncemL'nt 17.09.2020

I UDGMI:NT

Mohamnrad Karim l(han Agha, J.- ApPellant Aclil Hayat Akhtar has filecl this Crinrirral Accourrtabilitv Appeal in Ileference' No.50 of 2000 wl.rercbv he hzrs im;rugrrctl ttrc- jurlgrnt'rrt rlatecl 3.1.03.2t)01 passecl by the Accou ntartril ity Coult No.lll Kal'achi.

2.'the brief facts of the prosecutiorl case are that on 03 '04J'996 Deputy General Manager CI)13 (Ccntral Design llureau) l'akistan steel Mill hatl initiatetl the case fttr procuretnent ancl up-gradation of CAD system (Cornputer) to soh,e the futurc' requiretnent of clesign antl drawing works antl expirrrsiorr irrojcct of Irakistau stccl Mill.'l echnical proposal for uP-graelatiou ol availalrlc aukr c]At) s!stenr was obtarincel fronr M/s. CEMA h-rternational Corporation, UNIML,CH Engineering Colporation ancl M/s. Aclvance fjrrgirreering systenr (Pvt.) Limitecl. The technical ;-rroposal was also suLrrnittecl by the above nar-ned firms, which were tecl.rnically evaluatr.tl br, CDll Ilrarrch antl the prt>posal of the M/s. CEMA { lnternational Corporation vvas fourrcl technically more suitable than the proposal of the other two firms. Thereafter the General Mauager CDB had proposecl to acquire 15 latest powerful computer system along with atlr,atrcc softurare to rrakc thc futurc re(lLliremellt clf design and drawiug works crlvering re\/crse ttrlgineerirrg as well as elirect engineering, so tllat clesigrrirrg anrl enginet'ring works of exparrsion proicct was cateted fot ',

I

t\ tl-rereaftcr ctlt.ttt-llerclal offel' subrlrittec'l Lri' N'l/s CEN'Ir\ I lr tcrr-la ttotta I was

oPL-l1L'cl orr 26 51c)9(r l-ry ',r'htch the prtcc ot rctlurrcd equlPment / software 'Ihc sattl by wl'rich the \ 'ns v.llur'tl at Rs 4,32,906/- 1'rtce w'rs negotiatecl

l\4/S ( Ili;N4A Intt'rnatron.rl trtfcrctl t5 hrght'r t'esolutron' Apple Monitors -( alottg rttth lll.lrs c()lllfrut('l Ii s'20't)0'()0()/ - tree of cost P()\,\'7t'l 'rtnout-ttttltl arrel to pay 20"i. wrthhtrlclir-rg t.rx, as such 'lftcr negotiattotl the plice of

abo,,'e rtems l cnlclure cl uncharlged. l'lre ter rlrs of payment of f ered by thc

part\,\^/.is as uutlct - r) Atlv'irlcc Pavl-llcllt wtth Pttrchasc orclcr (50% ol klt'll tlrclcr) r) ])at-[ [r.rytlcnt on P.rrt cleltvertr's of the haldwarc rlr) Pat't l.:.rytlrcnt oI part t{eltvel'tt-s of software l\') Irtr-r.tl pavnlent ttlcltttltng the tl''ltntng ch'rrgcs ant{ alrl' trtttst.lntltlltl ..1lll()tll1t tluc 'rt the ttmc of fttral tleltverl" I I hc ('harr rran I).tkrst.trr stcel Mrtl lrarl onlv ll1oc'lifretl moblltzatttlt-t atll'antc tt or-u 50'16 to 2:", arltl r ef crt etl the case to l)tlecttlr I'tuance' wlro harl accortlrtrlll1. liavc [rrr.rncl.rl c()u( ul t'en('c ttl the ttrtlt' tlf Rs '1,32,85,906/ .Ittl tlrt,r-t thc c()ntt.r(t u,as arv.tttlt'tl kr Nl/5 C'lrUMA tNl lrl<NAI IONAT' ('( )l<l'()liA I l()N anti tttatcrr.rl rv.rs sttpPltt'tl

1 I hr, Investrg.r troll Of Ilccr shrtecl thc rrlvcstlSation atltl collectetl thr" tlrt' retlurrecl recorr-i antl recorlleLl the st.rtcmerrts of t)tt PWs ancl suLrt-utttt'cl rltclpt c|allatr [1,f1r1 1' l]11' Ctlult tlf Sprecral ]utlge, Arrtr-Corl'uPtloll Ct,rrtral-ll Karacht r\[ter tOntpletrng the 111111'511g.1[i6n hc hatl submrttcd tlrc t ltarllt' slrce t .l13ltlst lhc appt'llallt

5 l'hc (-lratntrarr Nr\ll tr.r nstt,rrr.rl tht, c.tst'tttrtlet sectttrl] l(r (A) tlf thc Natrorr.rl ;\cr'otttrtabtlLt\'()rtlttr.lttct'1999 (NnO) from thc Specral Jutlgc Antr ( rtrr.uptr0n l(.rr achr t() .llt .tc( rtr.tntabrlity cottrt at K.rraclrr rvhe rt' thc tlr.rl pnrceetlctl ttt accot tlattce rvtth l.rw'

(r Thc ch.rr11c n'as ft.rt-tlccl .l[].rlnst the 'rprpcllarrt by the trr'rl court t(') lr,hrch he ple.atl rrot llrrrllV .tntl clair.neci trr.tl, In orclct' ttl provc lts C.]St. thc Pl ()s('ctltl()11 e'ratl.ttnctl tt ['W's ant] cxhtbttccl tlullerous tlt>cutuents' J'ht' l appcll.rnt recorde(l hts sLrtetlretlt u/s 3'12 Cr I'C whereby he proclairnecl hrs rurrocL.nce but arluritterl thc .tw.rr,-l of colltract b N4/S CEEMA Intt'r r-t.rttonal Cor'yrora tttlt.l bttl tlctrtetl that thc contract w'l:r given t)lr

ex()r'bttattt rat(' ()r rt'tth6ttt ()lrscryttrg requtt'ccl fortnaItttt's or rules [-lc

howt'r,er rltd ttot gtvt'cvtele'ttcc uutler tlath or call '1ny DW rn suppolt ot hrs rlcfe trsc c.t st'

-lo

7.After assessing the eviclence on recorcl the trial court convicted anc{ sentenced tlre appellar-rt to suffer R.l. for 07 years anc'l to pay fine of was ordered Rs. 1,50,0(),000/ -. Irr case of non payment of fine the appellant to undergo further tt.l. ior 03 vears. It was also ordered that the appellant 1 shall be clistiualifietl for 21 vcars from seekirrg ot from being elected' clroseu, appoiuted or not-niuatetl as a member of representative of any hence pr.rblic oificc ()r anv stattlt()r1'ttt'krc.rl autllority of the Governtnent;

thc apprcllant has filtrci a;-r1-rtral against thc impugnecl juclgment' 8.Tlrefactsofthecaseaswellaseviclenceproduceclbeforethetrial court iirrd att claLroratc t'tttrtrtiott in the impuguccl iudgrncnt' therefore' the same are trot reproducetl hele so as kr avotd duplication and unnecessary repctitiorr.

9.After tltt'reatlirrg out of tl-re cvir-lelrce ancl tlre impugrrctl iuclgmcnt learnetl counsel for the appellaut canclitllv conceded that the Prosecution hatl provetl the chargc against the appellar-rt beyond a reasonable cloubt ar-rcl t.he ap-rpellarrt present in court orr bail tlicl tlot want to argue the appeal

ctrt merits brrt instcad tltrly retluestetl a reascltlable reeiuction in sentence

on the groutrrls that (a) lrt: htrtl servetl a substantial portion of his sentence (b) hc was an olcl tlan o[ 76 vcars of age (c) that he suffcrcd ill health (d) that tht' appi'11611 shora't'tl r('lllorst' for lris actittrrs alrtl (c) thc appcllant l-racl bee'u on bail fcx 15 yctirs ancl that it rvoulcl be inhumatle to now sencl

hinr back to iail after sucl-r a long time

10.l,earnecl Special Prosecutor NAB basecl on the mitigating circumstanct:s put forwartl by the appellant hacl no obiection to a reasonablc lt'tluctiotr itl st:rttt'ltce of imprisontneut howevet he submittecl tl-rat the tint itnposcrl or.r thc a;rpcllitut shoultl be maintairred anc'l the other tion ' purrisht-uetrts hantlctl tlowt't to the appellarrt itl terms of cl isqualifica

11.l-laving gorre thr.ough the evidence on recortl and the impugned jutlgment w(' are of the vir.'w that the prosecution has proved its case .a against the appellant beyoncl a reasonable doubt in respect of the offense fol wlrich he was chargctl.

12.n-rus, ivhilst tal<ing into c0rrsicl cra tiotr the arguments/ rnitigating factors justifyirrg a reduction in sentence of the appellant' and the no

I

-l 1

ol)lcctlon gl\/en by Spccral Prtrscctttor NAB we herelry by exerclslng our lrrtltct.tl rltscrt tltttt utrtlr-r S -123 Cr I'(' Ill.llllt.llll thc appcll.rr-rt's ct-rtrvtctiotr

but rtroclrlv thc serrtence of the.rppellattt to the ttme vVhlch he l-ras already unrlergont- tn custotly' r.r'hrch shall tnclutle tl-re 3 yeal Perlod for nol'l \ p.r\/lt1cl1t of thc flrle w[1c[ rn.lr1y ('vel1t ts too harsh anci ts reducetl to one )/ecrr arltl f()r a\/()lLl.lllce trt tloubt ts a pclrt of the trme servetl, espectallY 'rs '['he rt sL.culs tltat l-rc. h.ts alrc..rrly Se.n,etl oltt 5 VttlrS (lf a 7 yeal Sentence. appCll. tt tvho ls ()t1 bail, trarl bonrls stantl releasetl htlwevcr he wrll still be lraIrlc to p.rv tht trrt' itttPost'cl otl Irtt'tr tttltlcr tlrc rn thc lmpuglrccl whrch sh.ru lrc lccot'crctl t:r tht'tn.rnnet'latel clowtt rn thc NAO ;utlgr.ucr.rt .rn.l br'ssb;cct ttr lhc s.trtti'tlrstlualtltcatrtltrs,rs lt]1ptrst'tl tn tht' ttlr;lugrrctl ItrLlgntt'nt

I I \&e aIe fc'rltrf ictl [.\' ttur tlectstol-t ln reclucing thc appcllant's scntt r-rct ()i rrnltrrso|r'rront lrasod Otl thc p.llticlrlar iacts an(l CllCulllst.]llccs of thts c.tsc L',t' lrlactnfj rt']tatlct'()11 thc l'c(cllt suPrcnlc'court casc of Tariq Sac'cd v Stitc (2020 S( N4ti Il77) whrch w'rs 'rlso a N AII 'r1rPcal 'lgalrlst ttrrltrictrotl whcle rlt'sl)lte tl-re appellatlt t.ttlt shtlwillg any remorse ancl .lrlluutll hts cast' ()lt tllt't tts rt ra'"rs lrcltl as ulrcleL at I'11tJ1 I"lra 9 "vhtcl-t rLri(ls ln m.ttt'rl.ll p.rLt as tttltlct

Il,r1p11'1'v. rdrtlt relytttg otl (tst' tttlcd "Mttlnrntrnrl AslyLtfulas (.llitttlltrt r I'ltt \tntc" (1994 5CMR66/) ntul ultile ht|utS t t1l() tntt5ttl(nttto,t ll rrl llt ytt'ttttottt'r Is tt11 ttld ttntt tt'tllt l)t)ot lrctlllr t ttttirlttttr, It rttts Ir lrts nlrL'tdt1 tntdtrgorrc

(L

(o( sub\hullltl I rrl ol ,tttlttrt t' ?Lotth'tl bry hollt tlu: tottt[s, dcL'ttt tt ttPllt oPrtttIr I tttcr I tltt' cttds ttf' ltrsltct , rcrhtce tlt s(tttrt:Lc, nlr tlv ttll rr trrl rtlttt rlhey tr'Itltrttu'r lrttttt sctt?tt tlttrs trt fiuc ryenrs rolttla ttrtttrlrtttttttg lln' \atll(t1tl o[ ftttr' oI tls 1,b.].00,000/' rttrd ot t ll,L ttt tot t L,I ltrttt)urtct ['tlotrgrttg t() pclttt() ?r tn fttt,or ttJ llu' \ttrtt ltt llra ttlrcttr sntd trrttrs, tltts pt:ttttotr rs cottt't'rtc ttlto tt\l'utl rrttrl prtt tlry rtllorL'arl "

1-1 f l-rc' a p Pq'a I st,r tttl s ti tst-trt ssetl except .ls Inod lf lecl a bove

I

{,lf / lrr' ]UDfiE ,,1,t/r-^ t J0.+..- r\\a\l:,> *