Soomar Khan (Petitioner) VS N.A.B,thr:Chairman,Atta Turk Avenue,Islamabad & or (Respondent)

SrlLt

,i:D

IN TFIE HIGI{ COURT OF SIND}I BtrNCH AT SUKKUR

lSefore Mr. Jusljce Mahrnood A. I{han.

Mr. Jrtstice Mohammeci Karim l(han A5_1ha

v C.P No. D IB72l2016.

Jarred Ali

Vs.

Chainnanr NAB ancl others

u1ong with CP No.D-2087 l2016, D-2OBB /2016,

D-2377 I 2016, D.23tE / 20 16,

D-23L9 /2016, D_2334 l2Ot6,

D-2357 I 2076, D-2.37 4 / 20 76,

D 2386 l 2Ot6, D-2464 1 2O1 6,

Y D-2521 / 2016 and D-4 09 * / 2a 1 6

Date of hearing 07 -o3-20t7, 2ta3-20 17, 22-03-20 t7 and 28-03-20i7 . Dait- of Ordel 3 1-03-2017

Mr. Zuiifqar Ah Sa-ngi aclvoca'tte for the petitioner-s in C.p I'lo. i)- Mi'. l(amal Azfar aclvocate ror the pclit-iorir:ii ir-r ( l). N,r. l.J 2OSSl2O16 ancl in C.P No. D-2334 l2OiG

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Sfrah, advocate foi the petitioner irr C.P No. D 2087 /2Ot6.

Mr. Tariq Ali Jakhrani, adyocate for" the petitlone rs in C.P |.1o. D 2318, D-2521 I 2Ot6; D-4O94 / 2O16 and D-23V 4 I ZAi:{'t..

5qs

Nir-. Ah Rnzar Baioch, ad"'ocat-e for l-lrt prelttjouer- in C.P N.r l) Mr. Bal<hshare l(heiri Nlairar', acivocate for tl-re pe1 itiolrcrs rrr C.P lro.D-23 19 / 201.6 and C.P No.D-246.t I 2.O7(.-.

NIr. Dar-eshani Aii Ha:der 'Adar' ildvocate for the petitioner rn C P No D-2357 2016.

v Ni/s Qurban Ah Vlalano ai-rci Gulzerr Alrmed Ma,lano, advocrrtes for- 1.Jre petrtior-rer 111 C.P No.D-2'317 l20 16, D-23E6 l2016' ivIr. Nlul-ramrnad Zubair Malik, A.D.P.Ci.A l\1\ts (Sul<littr) a,/r,v .'\bdril N{a;eecl Memou, Special Prosecutot' NAR (Sr-r1ikr-rr) ftlI tltt: Respondents.

q_B_q rl R

Mohzunrncd Karim l{han Agha, J. Bv this cornl-,o.;Lte ,ll-r1cr propose tC dispo.se of the ulsr/e rnentto;-ied [-retttioils lllr:-l i.t.'

petiLioners for confirmation of their pre ali est batl ,!.. All Lhe petiticners har.e been accu-sed cf cot':-uptiorr a'r-rrl Y c-orrr-rpt practices under tirc Nationaj Accor-ttrta-brlt1-v C)rclri tan ce 1999 (lriAo) which lead to the National AccorlirtabilitJ; B,-rrcari (itlti:l lrling NAB reference A7 12016 'Ihe State V Jarnpel Aliip<:d Qrrrcslii rr,-rd i7 olhcr-s agalnst them amd r.;Lhcrs oir lE-Oi-l li; 1i ir.,, I' I 1 cltn-ently procecdir-rg before the AccourrLabiit'"-'.' Coi,trt eit Srtl..:l',:I l-1 t

3.'i The brief facts of the case ar-e that Ll-re ollicini accus.:d rt'ti, ..^)\i;

moSliy XtrI{'s, Assistanrt XEll's and Sr-rb Eng:neers ar-Jl '"vorkitrg i,--rr -'thb{'Provrncial Higir Way-" p1r,.ion '-iui<lrur (PHDS) rn'ho :r-11 ttrisusecl .tl' --;:r-or I-ailed to exercise their a.u'chorit1, during thc grat-il. rtl', mot-r'tct-irrg of, and payment of contractors rvho z,Je iilc othet-co-e,cci:secl in tite t-eferetrce al1 of r,r,hom are Govcrnnent or irr-i'.'ate r--911 q1-61.;f1r1-5; r"'1.11, ,.t,4

5qL

tr1 iutentionally, deliberately and illegally iajled to perfot'rn their contracts to the agreed standard/quantity and measuretnent and yet received futl payment at the completion of the same in cr:nnivalce ancl coilusion with the official accnsed which causecl' v loss to the natlonal exchequer and gave undue benefit in terms of awa::cl of, eontracts and fina:rcia-l gain for the payment of the contract work which. had either not been completely constructeci ot- had been constructed in a sub standard way iu breach of tlre agreed terrns aqd conditions through either not using the requir:ed

'L

materials, or failing to construct'the project in the required ,rur.,i..

using tire' required materials which lead to the projects being completed in a defective and sub standard pranner. Most of the projects involved the construction of roacis . in the Srtt:l.:urr and Ghotki areas of Sincl. By such misuse of authority/fajlure to Y exercise authority by the oflicial accused the other accused {u,ho were rnairlly Govemment and privatc contrarctors arrd beneficiaries) gave illegal and undr-re favours/benefits to the pon official accr:sed ar:rd thus all the accused were liable lor the offenses of corlupl practices and corruption under S.9 of the NAO and leence relc-rence No.7/2016 was filed against them on 2B-i0-2016 by the NAB before the Accountability Court Sukhur

'l'he case essentially therefore divides into tu,o classes of ', i '1 ,,

t'taccused.

l_ Firstly the official accused vrho deliberately ?rd ":'iirtention a-1ly r4isused or failed to exercise tireir autlority 1l l connivarrce with the other co-accused (beneficiaries-most of rryhom Yl

Sct-7 f

ar-e Governrnent or private contractors) who gerined an undue benefit and caused loss to th.e public erichequer and macle personal gain on account of this colh-rsion and connivar-rce with the official accused through the awa::d ald non perforrnalce of contracts io x constr,uct roads '"vho form the second ciass of accuSed l.c be neficiaries

5.The first point to consider is that by a:ld large the emrournt irrvolved in tlris 1el'erence is beiow the pecuniary jurisdiction of NAB as set out in Lhe case of Amjad Hussain V Chairman NAts (YLR 2017 | in r.vhich one of us Mohammed I{arirn Khan Aghh J r,vas a member) and therefore prirna facie may not qrralify a.s a NAB case.

I-Io,"vever it was observed at pa-ra 44 of Amjad Flussain's case (Supra) that the SOP, now judicial order; in terms of NAB's.prima Y facie minimum pecuniar5r jurisdiction may r-rot apply if there.is a pt'ospect of a plea bargain and the reference is in Lhe advarrced stages. In ttre instant case it is made clear in the reference that 5 of lhc origina.l accused have a.lready entered into plea bau-gains arrcl as sur:h there r,nay be.a prospect of other accused enteri,g i'to plea bargains. Thus in our vier,v the plecunierry jurisdiction: in this specific case rnay not be a bar in NAB hling tiris rcference under judicial order on pecuniary jurisdiction, especir,Llly as 1-he case ilj t.,l 1 a relatively advalced stage, although we r,vill deal r,vith this lt 1 (.tj in more detail iater in this order when we consider the terpretation of Amjad Hussain's case (supra) anci other relevant cases on this point.

\i1

5q+

6.Since tiris is a case of pre a;rest bail before consrcleriug the cases of the petrtioners orr interim pre arrest bail in thrs case rt rs ur our view necessai]'lo obsel-ve that as rs vvell .llnor,vn the condrLrorrs v fol the grant of pr-e arrcst and posl- alr^es1. i-rarl r-rr-c r1uilc disl ilrcl in lar.i, rr-ttd '"vere ,,';c11 set out rn the case of Rana Moh:rrnmccl Ar,shirrl I V Niuhamrned Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427). in thrs case at P. .i.ll rl the follow'ing conditions need to be satisfied belorc pre. arrcs[ 1-raril can be granted as sel out bclou,

]l 7j

u9. Even since then, the said rnterpretation sc) rnacle, the said pou,ers so founcl and tl-re parameters so prescribed, have been reguiarly and repcatediy colnrng -l up for scrutiny b1, the Sup.,erior: Courts including thrs Court. But each time Lhe matLer was r-e-exanrrned, tlre same was only re-affir-med. Tire said corrcept n: it rvas ir-ritially propounded; as it dcveloped and as the :,:r,;)r,.' stands today, may be sur-nmarized for the bcncfri. ,rf ri:

' ;-l all as under:-- .,Y (a) grant of bail before arrcst is arr extr.'acrr,i,i-i:'.;-y relief to be grantecl ouly in extrflor L,; ri.rt-li {.. situations to prctect innocent pcrsons r.ig;;.i;i. .- +r i{.

victimization thrcugh ahu.se of law Ib.; r!'- .:,.....)r a^/ motivcs;

(1:) ple-arrest irail is not to be used as a srrbstitute r:;: '-'i as an alternative for post-arrcst irail;

i.,

(c)bail before arres{: eafl not trc granted unless th-c person seeking it sati.sfies the r:oli:c,-"icnt ,|.: specified subsection l2l of scction 497 of Co,le of Crirrrinal Procedurc i.e. unless he establislres fire existence of reasonable glounds leeidinil Lo .r br.ir,..f ti-iat ire lvas noa guilly o[ Lhe offence al1e11e tt irr:].r-li'rsl . /1;. hitn and tirat there .! rcre, in {act, srilfic,"111 rgt-ourltcis I "i \\'arrarntlng furthe',.' inguiry rirto hrs gurrh;

!,il)t .,.trl

(d)not just this trut in addition thereto, he must r',r,,o shorr that his arrest v,ras beirrg sought for ult.- .-,,' motive, particularly on tirc patt of the polir:r., ,-o causc irrepara-ble hurniliarl-jorr to him arrrJ t() disagree aird clishonor h.im;

t1

5'.iq

) (r

(e)such a petilioner stiould futrther establi'sh that he hacl not Cone orsuffer:ed 4n,v act '"vhich t'r'ot'tid disentitle him to a discretionary relief in equity e'g he hact no past criminal record or that he had not been a fugitive at larv; and finally that;

(f)in the absence of a reasonabie a:rd a justifiable

Y

cause, a person ciesiring his admission to bai'l before arrest, must, in the iirst instance approach the Cor-lrl- of first instant i.e' the Court o[ Session, before petitioning the High Court for the purpose'"(bold added)

T.AtP.434Para15oftheajoresaid'Judgrnentitr'vasalsoheld as under:

"lt had a-lso been repeatedly held by the Surperiot Cortt'tri (reference be macle to Zia-ui-l{assan's case supr;L) th:'rt- no Court would have aly power to.grant pre-ar-rest baii unless all tlrc cond{ttons specified for allouring bail before arest bspeclallg the qondition regarding Maiafides were proved." (bold and ita-lics arided)

Y

8.The question'before u'q is thelefore, as a rnatter of law, based ou the facts an-id circumstances of tire case and l-he role which each pelitioner piayed in the case r.vhetleer he his er-rtitled to the confirrnation of his pre arrest bail

9.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and considered both their ora-1 s 'bmissions and written submissiotrs, r, (."I GA NAB, perused the'recorcl vely carefully and the case lau, i: ,'.r

l-- C at the bar bv them

As per settled law we hane only rnade a tentatiVe assessment ol the material placed before us and this order shall rrot prejuclice \ri

(rfu

tl-ie case c',f a;rv lralty at triai rvhich shall be decided bJ, tlre trial court or-r merit based on the evidence befcrre it

-i

11.We shall deal with the case of each petitioner in trlrn all of v *4-rom have applied for pre arrest bail. In a,lI cerses NAIJ velrerrcr.rlll, i-r1-tposerl thc grant o[ pre arrest barl alc1 stressed that Lhclc lr.rrl bcelt uo nialaflcles on the part of NAB arrd 1-hat jn each cilse thr;rc -l a.-l rvas sufficielit rnatct-ia-l to prove beyond a reasoraltic- cloubt ti'rat:rll the coi-icerued ltetitioners tvcre guilty of 1:he offen-se fbr r,,vltrclr lr,:

i..! l-racl been charged irr the reference.

liv.j ..', 12. Learned counsel for petitioner No.t in CF D 2OA7/ 16 Mr.

Gul Hasan Shaikh (accused Nc.2 in the refei'ence) u,lio at the trr-rre of the offense i,r,as XEN Provrncia-l Highr,vay Divisron Sr-rl<l<ur (PIID.S)

E-,

rrr-rbrnitted thaL oetitioner No.1 was exclucled fronr the scope ol- the Y rr'1cr-cnce as the rvorks rvi-ricir he hacl -sa-rrctionccl had c,t:crrir-c,i before tl-ie inqurry was stalted and as suclr he couid noL be patrr,,I the refelence; that he had onl1r [ss1, rnvolved tn one. q,611-j.; 1,r,i. 1 rvhtci-t was two years earlier; that the technrcarl report was dcfet rr,.,, at-rd incot-rclttsirre as'it onlV exarrrined 2 i:il hclcs in th r.' lolg, , o;,i! ;

th.rt- the technrcal repcrt only found tbat tire road u,eis danrrrgecl amd ."vas t-rot sub sta-ndard and a.s such exonerated i-um; as 1..,er Rule 94 of the centrai Fublic works Rules he was hot Lhe resironsibie L ' ' r'.')i.,'.t,lllcr':- corrce r-lrcc] rviih crrsriling tirat Llrc rvorh u,as c.-u-r'ir.c[ pr-rt - /.. ,r,,, t,i

"!l,tl1 c lcqur-ed .stzurciard a-tid there haci beei-i no mir;use o| autlrcrr-rl), o,1r h1s part ald as such for- atl tJre arbo.,re l-easons petrtroner No 1 \,vas entltled to have hrs pi'e arrest bail confirmecl.' yl')

.<.q

f bot

U

13' FIe did not submit that there had been any malafirre on the part of llaB

14.In support of his contentions in r,espect of misuse of authority lear-ned counsel placecl reliance on The gtate vs. M. Idrces Ghauri (2008 SCMR 118), Mansur-Ul-I{aque Vs. Government of palcistan (PLD 20oB sc 166). In support of his co,tenrions that the orfer-ing of an earlier voluntaqr return at bail stage was irrelevar:t he placecl reliance on Munir, Ahmed seelro vs. Feddration. of pakistan througtr chairman NAB (2016 yLR 2624) ared Muhammad Islanr. I{Iran Vs. Za.rai Taiaqiati Banlr Ltd. (2013 pLC (CS) 79S).

,t5 Petitioner No.1 has been given a specific. role at para 5 of tire reference which reads as under

"Para 5. The Investigation Repcrt reveals that the acctrsell No. O2 / Gul Hassan Strreikh, E:I-XEN provirrcial Higb.,vays Division Sukkur, \,as posted as Executive Etitgineer: Provincia-i Highways Division Sukk,r. During hi.s incumle,cy from 2O1O to January 2OI3 in connivan." *Ith accused No.4, 6 and accused Sir4j Ahmed (Contractor) by iaisuse of his er.uthority issued r,vor-k, order of o1x sche,rg to cor:tractor.. iSiraj Ahrnad). Verified the measurement books.(MBs), parcl bil1s o, the basis of MBs by which substanr.lar.i ,rn,lk irr,,,,, exec'uted aricl ,,,r;orks were lbu,d belor.r, tlr" of Pakista, Fubric works Depar.rmerit "p;;i;.rri"r. ^,',r.,,. leport tppwii C"i.t..,..

Accused Gu'i Hassan shaikh rvilrlrlly railed to exercise rrrs autlrority.to prevent the grant anct rJrdered unciue benefii favor wirich he couicl have prever:ted by exercise oI iiis,, authority, due to his omissio, a, cl *isuse of l-ris la',,1ul authority he caused loss and gains occurred ol 5s-11,10,131/- (Eleven',ac Ten Tircusand one H,nclrccr ancl th:*l One Rupees) to nationa_l e:rchecprer. His individuai t lia1ri1it1, & gatns is of Rs.2,77,53,21-,t

We do not except petitioner No,1,s contention ttrat his one satnc tion action feli outside tire scope of the iriquiry, i.vestigatio, or

Vt

l-r2.

._l t'efereuce' An i,cguiry uncrer tire NAo, rike a, F.T.R, simpiy gets ti-re

ball rolling in a criminal iase a,cl'if a,y incrirni,ating ividence of an offense is discovered during that inquiry a:rcl or investigation it rnay forrn a part of a reference provided .that the evidence is Y surflicient for the purposes of S.1B (g) NAO.

17 . Petitioner No. t has tried to unde'play his roie in tiris reference by sub4itting that he had no real role to play ir-r monitorirrg the works since he was xElrl and as per Rule 94 of the centrai Public works Rules he wag not thr: olficer i, cha,-ge o[ the works. Instead he attempted to pass the buck to A XEN and sub XEN. we do not find any sul:stance in this argument. petitiorrer No.1 held the senior position of X EN arld in our vier.r,he had overail supervision of the works carried out by his suborciinates a:rcl as such he was equally responsible il these wor-ks *,cre either. nor.

-I',

carried out or not carried out to the required standard. In orlr vie'r tl.r.e greater the seniority the greater the responsibilit.y is to enslrre that subordi,ates carry out there worl< in a prol)er m€uu1er a:rcl to the requiled standard.

18' The fact that the petitioner No.l was o.ly i,volved ir-r sanctlonlng one work order- is iileleva:rt. Iir fact it i-s a:r aclmitteci position by the petitioner's counsel that he clid sanction the worl< order in question. hr our view the Technical Report rather than {lr^r xoueratilr g the petitioner fuilrr implicates i-iim in his misuse ol orit1, 2p.1 signing off ou substalclarcl wcrrks as column 2 of thr:

,:. I

ks of the road in question states as -under at p.I37, ,Itl-rat ttre

bbs

t0

executed thickne-ss is not justified with TS estimate. The premixed carpet of 1-1 /2 tinrck is not executed in various portions of the road". The r-eport at P. 137 also indicates overpayments for r'vorl< '"vhicir r,vas not done by examining the differerace in quantity as per v MB and per site. Otirer documents relating to the road in question ir-rcluding the work done and costing have also been placed on rccord which show the signature of petitioner No. I whicl-r a-lso belie his claim that he had no responsibility in the matter and on the contrary suggest that he lVaS fully involved in supervising the matter as per his job function bear-ing in mind his scrrir:rity 1S. It is pertinent to note that tire accused contractor t,'ho illega11y benefited from the works has already ente.r-ed into a plea bargain (PB) r.vith the NAIS and has thus admitted hjs guilt. The petitioner No.1 along with some other co-accused (1, 4, 5, 6, and B) -v a-lso r:ffered a voLuntar;r return to the IIAB which was rejected by the NAB wl-rich facts alone may not justify the refr-rsal to conllrm the petitioners bail but such facts speak for thelnselves dlcl may to a certain extent be corroborative of other milterial on record

20.In ou vier,v.it is quite appa:-ent.f,rom the materied on r-ecord in particular the technical report that the petitioner No.1 rnisused/failed to exercise his authority in sanctioning the works :,,. and failing to ensure that the r,vorks lvere cat-ried out by the t C acto r to the requirecl st-ar-rdu'd arrct also ar-rtl-rorized over ',t p ents which benefited the contractor and caru-sed loss to the l-i onal exchequer. Since there is no evidence on arly rnaiafides on

bota

it the part of NAB and in our vierv there js prima facie sufficient materiaL to connect the petitioner No.l. to the offense with r,vhich he is charged his pre arrest bail is l,rereby rec:rlled 2L. Learned counsel in CP D 2OAa/2O1.6 for petitioner No.2 Mr. Ghulam Shabir Shailth (accuscd No.3 in the rel'ercncc) "vho "rt tl-ie time of the offense was Assistant XEirtr PHDS, in CF D 2o8b/ 16 for petitioner No.3 Mr. I{hadim Hussain Khalwar (accused No.5) in the reference who at the time of the offense was Sub Engineer PI{DS and in CP D 20A8/16 for petitioner No.4 Mr. Syed Ali Nasseer Shah Jaferri (accusecl No.6 in the reference) who at the time of tire offense was Sub Engineer- PIIDS, in CP D 1.A72/ 16 for petitioner llo.5 Mr. Javed Ali Shaikh (accr-ised No.zl ir"r the reference) who at Lhe time of the offense was Assisti,rnt XIIN PI{DS, sr-tbmitted both written arrd oral submissions. On the legeil plain l-re -t sr.r.brnitted that this was a case of furthei inquiry; tirzrt cin a tentative assessmer.lt of the material on record there was nothing to cor-Lrrect the pet-itioners to the cornmission df the oifense; a:rd placed special emphasis on the question of proportior-rality l,rt criminal cases in.support,:f the propositir:n that the grant of bail r,r,as the proper course in this case as opposecl to imprisonrrrr:nt especially when the petitioners had been regularly atfending the trial and were no ionger neeued in the inquiry and submitted tl-rat .--:.1-:1.!..:".. trnder such circumstances the pre ar-rest bail o[ the petitioners .. l-' ii:ri.it..

: .'1.,:lsr,.

l:)i".:,si1ould not be reca1led. h-r this respect tre pia,ced reliarlce on both r r 1,.i,,

ii....,case lawramcl am article on Proportionaiity in the. P[rilosoptry of Purrishment, a. Studg by Andreu; uorl. Ifir'sch Crim,e strcl.

b{, l2

Justlce Vol, .16, L992, pp 55-98, Tlrc Unl.aersitg of Chicqgo .ilress, explain Proportionality in'crirninal Justice syste rn ver'-r' widely wleich is reproduced as uncier for ease of reference:

"For sottte accused/prisone::s. incarceration is so stark l' ancl pslzchologically painful that it t-eprescnts a lorm of traumatic stress serve enough to procluce post" traumatic. stress: reactions ollce releasecl' (LIS Constit'utional Amendment VIII). In addition tc 1-he'pair inflicted upon ttre offender being im1:risorled, incarcer:ation also harms the family a:rd children of tl're salctioned offender, resulting in a punishing element wleich far exceeds the prirrra facie'sentencing goal ald range. Incan'cer:ation, as the infliction 'of profound psyihological (a:rd in mEny cases phy5isal) pain through severe deprivations of hction and association, has a destri-rctive effect on an offender's private ar-rd famil)' lifr':' IL alsb impacts. future career prospects, and leacls tc-r other significant post-incar-ceratiot-i cotrseqdetrces o11 csrnmuuities arrd the offencier's health (either through loirg-term incarceration or through infectious diseases)' Posner; a jurist, thus subjects punishmeut to a cost/benefit analysis .- a matter of esl-irnating the cos;ts of punishment and weighing them against penaltics' crime preventive yield.

Equity is scarified when ttrre proportionaiity principle is disregardedr eYen when this is done lor the srri<'': c'f crime prevention."

22.So far as the allegations against the petitioners cotrcernecl he subnritted that there had been no lvrong doing otr the part of the petitioners; that:they had ca-rried out their 'functions lawfully; that their S.i6l Statements sllpported their contetrtions tleat the .work had been car.:,ed out to the required standard auld -:liilr:*^ 'any'wrong that they rvere irrnocent of doing; that to r-eca-Il tl-reir br-iii . .\t-: .

, rf r '',Y;,i1eor14

cause hurniliatior to thcr:l: thal thc relusai ol bail cortld. rrc: i :- l':{, 'r:,r1'be clone in order to 1:unish the petitioners; tirat Nl\Bls acts ivc:te motivated by rnalafides and that the technical peport w4s defective ,tl/

b,bL

t3

arrd for ali the abo\re reasolls the petitioners 2'3'4 and 5's , Eii pre

arrest bail shorrld be confirined

2.3.Irrsupportofhisvariolrscontentionslearnedcounselplaced

.Y

relianceonthefollowinglawandautlrorities;Articlegarrdl0A Constitution of Islamic Republic of Paliistan' Crown vs' Khushi vs" IVluharnmad (PLD 1953 FC l7C at p' 186), Muhamrnad Ayoub Muhamrnad Yaqul, (PLD 1966 SC 1OO3 at p'10I2-A'1O13-C & i014-D),SadiqAlivs.state.(PLD1966SC5B9atp.597&598-F)' Manzoor ancl 4.others v; state (PLD L972 SC 8I at p'84), Zabur Ilahi vs. The State (1981 SCMR 935 at p'938)' Murad Khan vs' - B2 at P'84)' Jamaluddiri vs' The Fazl-e-Subhan (PLD 1983 SC

State (1985 SCMR 1949 at p.1952-B & F, para 9)' Meeran Bu>r vs' Thestate(PLD1989SC347atp.350-C),NaqiHussainShahvs.. Tlrestate(|gg2SCMR600atp.601-A),TariqBaslrirvs.The -f^ st:ate (PLD 1995 SC 34 at p.41-D & E), Multiline Assqciattrs rrs.

Aldeshir cowasjee (PLD 1.995 SC 423), Imtiae Ahmed v. state (l'Li.) 1997 SC 545 at p.588-M), Dildar Ali vs- The' State.(1'999 SCMR 1316 at p.1316;A), Asfandyar Wali & others v' Federation of Fakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607), AbduX Aziz Khan Niazi vs. The statc 'at tlrrough NAB (PLD, 2OO3 sC OOa p.674-B & c; 675-D & E), Muhammad Firdaus vs. The state (2005 SMCR 7B.l at p.B4'1-A;

845-B), Lal Muhamrnad Kali.:ro vs. The state (2OO7 SCMR 843 al t.,i\. p.844-A;845-B) Khalildrahsarhandi vs" NAB (2008 P.Cr,L..i 967 at , 'i-'1ip.970; 971-B), Z'lfiqar Ali Abbasi r,-s- The Statc,, through . lv !r.

{-r11 ':i i"tli jralf,j-yairmal NAB (2003 YLR 22Zg aL p.2232-A, Pzu'a 12 & iil), .,,,rj : .., fi ^ii " Mrrharrrrnad I{arnil ws. The State (2010 YLR,1057 at.p.105B-A),

b61

l4

Fayaz Ahmed vs. The State (2014 SCtuIR 7628 at p.1630-A), Muharnmad Sadiq vs. The,State (2015 SCMI1 1394 at p-1397 B & r-.|

24.Petitioner No.2 (Ghulam Shabir Kalwar) has been given a

.V

specific role at para 6 of the reference u,hich reads as unde r:'

"6.The Investigation Report revea.ls that the accused No. 03 Ghulam Shabir I{alvuar, .Assistant Engineer, Provincia.i Highway Sub Division Ghothi. Accused No.03 r'emained posted as Assistant Engineer from 26.O9.2013 to 09.09.2014. During his incumbency in connivance with accused No.1, 5, 10, 12, 17.and Siraj Ahmed (cgntractor) accused No.3 verified the N'lBs of 4x schemes aJter measurerrent at the site. On l-ris verification qnd approval, XEN alloweo the paymerrt to contractorsl During .his posting, as per PPWD report., the executecl, u,orks were lbund substarndard zrnd bclo."v thr,' specilicatiore as recorded in MBs. Accused No.3 r.villfully fajlerl to cxercise his authority to prevent. the grant a,ncl lenclr-recl rlnrlue benefit ,/ favor 'r,hich he could have preventeci b1' exercise cf his authority. dr-re to his omission and misuse of iris laurful authority hc caused loss and gains occtrrred of Rs. 1,08,46,5641- {One Crore liight Lacs Irorfi Six Thousands -a- Five Hundred and Si;<t1'Four Rupees) to the national exchequer. His individua-l liabilitir B: qains is of Rs.16, 16, o, Lvr2v QRl-t t

I

25- Petitioner No.2 was co.cerned 'rrith the constrr-rttion of 4 roads as set out below,

P.l29"of the Report which is tire Ubar-o l-angl-ro Shah Road shor,vs in the rema-rks columtl under ear'tir rvorhs that, '116s embankment of the berms of road ir-r some portions was not properly executed whicl-r is sanctioned in TS estimate" a:rd for providing 1" think consolidated pi'emix, carpet, "'1 rre executeci thjclutess is not justified ';:.. with TS estimate. The plemix carpet o[ l" thick is not executed iri va-r-ious portions of ti-re road". 'lhe difference in qty columns ajso ciearlv shou, over charging by the contractr:r.

bb'1,

l-\

P.i71 of the Itcpcrt 'oi:.icir coilcerned construction of road from rrillage Sher Mohan-tmed Ma'har rvhere the contractor'"vas Wazir Aii'Mahar (petitioner: No.' 8 in this order) r.r"'hose case is dealt r,vith belorv basicaliy showed the sarne substandard worl<. over cliarging etc as lvas the case for petitioner No.B and in our view shor'vs that petitioner No'2 was irand in $iorre vi11' petitioner No'8 whereby petitioirer No.2 deliberatdiy faiied to exercise I his authority/rnisused his authority itr order to give undue l-avour, beirefit and gain to petitioner No.B.' P. 13i of the Report col1cerlls the reconditionirrg of the r oa.dfrom Ubaro Langho I'Joor Shah Road which clearly shows that the.lead rate was not in accordance with the qualtity which caused a ioss to the national exchecluter' In this scheme the contractor has aiready entered itlto a PB rvith NAB.

P.773 of the Report concerns the construction of road from Bago Daho to village Rasool Bux l(ora: where the contractor was Mt:, Soomar w-ho is i:elitioner No.1.5 in this order whose in respect of buildir-rg this "o..upiior, road is discussed iater in this order. Once again the nexus between the petitioner No.2 ald the acctised contractor petitioner No.i5 tends to shor,v tirat they were harld in giove r,vith each other. and tl-rat thror-igh petitioner No.2's misuse of authority/failrl-e t<r exercise authority the said contractor was given urtdue bcnelit ard gain at the cost of the nal.iona-l exchequer.

'2(t. In or vier.l, as mentioned l.ater in ll-ris order r.r,e lind the Report to be well prepared by experts as assisted bj,,5ther exllerts ir-r tl rc relevalt {relci and tlrat it is concise, sulficientlv del.ailecl ancl reliable and the iearned c-ounsel for the petitioner iras been urrable to ptrt arrir sigr-rificant dent in the Report -uvlrich in our vie."v can salely be relied upcn as beirrg accurate

27.Petitioner No.2 rvas an Assista:rt engincel vrho held a ;rositioti '-. i 'l;+oi lesponsibilitl' ',l,hose dut-y rvas to enstlre tha.t tlee lt'orlcs r,tere 'illcl.r'ied out to t)rc rccluirecl s'-zu rclarcl arrci rlie corrcct pi.r.ym"r-,t' rr,,, j.,i.

' l-r\ade for the rvork to the cor:tractci -,vhicle position is bolstcred 1-,i,

boq

t6

rule 94 cf Centrai Public Works Rulcs as nr€.I11-ioj'red e.rrlier. In our vrcii, 1,1-, e nratc.r'ip^l r;ir lecoi'd prirna 'facie :,,h or,i''-: tl'rat Lhr:.petitioncr Irio 2 ira-s failed to e;<ercise iris authortt"'arr,-1 r,tisused i'its ll'-ttirrlrtt' in order to give benciit, unrlue fa'rouL a.ncl Hali-) lo Lhe I :-rfore rnentroreecl corttractols in collu.sror-r a-r'Ld rrcnnr\r.r.nce vvt ti-i tl-ri:tn al-lci as such thel.e is prirna facie stifficrcnt rnztLet'jerl c,tt r''Lol'cl io cotlnect petrtioner No.2 -u;itl'r the offensc'fcr r,vhicll i-re has bec't.l char ged

23.\Ve lrave carcfull,y considered thc casc larr.' relied r-tpon L-ri' learnecl couirsel for the petttiot-ier espccttrll-,' tn tc:rnls of irlalerftde u,jttch, in out- vic'"v, llase<l on the case lau, ol1 pl'C ilrrest ltail, rs tl-ic nr:rln pre condiUon for the grall cf pre a-n'es[ bail arr,l ;rrc of ihc Yle.,.r,' that all the authortties so cil-ecl b,.. irlar:rLcC cLruirlici 1or thc peL1i,1oner are drstrngr-risLra,ble fi-om Lire abcvc crteLl L'.isL' r-';l: Rau:r Mohanr.med Arshad V Muhammed Rafigue (Pl,D 20o? SlCl 427)

(r,"'l-uch we considei- strll remajns the Ceirnir)g JudgnlenL o1I prc ar-r'est barl as rl cotisiclered dl earlier relevant judgments,'orclers bcfol.e coudensingJ ar-iC sclttlng out lill the r(] ql-{iremelrts vi,}'ricl-r r-reedecl to be satisfied in order to g1'arrt/co11f1r-lrr l)re arrest bail) rr-r Lei-ms of tLre qraxt of ure arre,s1. batl 'u,hich l-eeulresr l-1.rr: lc,qrr.l rssut:

of nialafides to l:e present. In tl-ris carrse \i/(-' finci rro rrralaficles on the pai't of NAB. NAB has uo LrIm1tl,i or ilrror rellLtr'onsirrp ivrth l-he -L ltelitroner No.2 arrd rts findings il-e based or1 '.1]e l?cperrl lvhlcll u,e ltalc alr.-ciy founcl to be reherble alC accurate hr tLrrs connectlon i.riill i :.-'. i'" rrr lralticular-rr,'e observe that:r rrun-:ber.of the cases relied upon b1,' ' ll -

'' lca-i-rrecl corrnsel 1br tire pc',ir.ioller-have either-l-reen citecl and

Y::

_ry-

considered in the case of Rana Mohammed Arshad (supral' l-rave

been i:assecl before that Jir<lginer1t, cr are by I{igh Courts or

col.Icern post ar-rest:bail or shov,,clear malclalides so as to qualify

for the grant of pre arest bail or humiliation and as sr:ch are

k two most distinguisirable from the present.case' With respect to the case of recent Suprerne Court cases replie d upon with 'regard to the Fayyaz Ahmed V The Statc (2014 SCMR 1628) this concemed rl to iink the accr-rsed to the offense which is clistinguishable from this gase as we find prim facie that there is

sufficient material to connect the petitioners, to the pffense as charged. Fur-therrnore,the fina-t anc{ most recent case of 2015 reliecl

upon by the petitioner being the Suprem-e Court case of Muhammed Saddiq v Thd state (2015 SCMR 1301 1t'l11' follows andsupports the case of Rana Mohammed Arshad (supra), in I terrrrs of the grant of pre ;rrrest bail and the role of malafides in tlre grant of the same where at P'1397 Para 7 it is held as und.er:

i.consiclerations for pre-arrest bail are totally different- fron'. that of post-arrest b.il. Pr"-urrest bail is aI extraorciinurl.I relief, *ii.r.a" the post-ar-rcst bail is ortlinary relief' Whil<: seeking pre_arrest bail it is duty of accusecl to cstablisir p"-oi"' mo'lq. Jide on the part of the Investigating ^"ra agency or the complainant. Eail befbre arrest is meant to piote.i inriocent citiz.ens rvho ha'r'e been involr'ed in heinouis offerrc." with mata Ede arnd r-tlterior motivel'' Thus, since in our view, prima facie there is sufficier"rt eriai to cotlnecL petitiolrer liio.2 to the offense for which he has 'i.i,r't

n chargecl and no malafi,les has been shor,vn on the part of l{AB \,r/

(rl I

i8

lhe interim pre ar.'rest bail grarrteci to petitioirer No.2 is hereby reca-iled.

30.Petitioner No.3 (Khadim Hussain Kalwar) has beere grven a k specific role at pal-a B of the referertce u'hich reads as under;

"8. The Investigation Report revea-ls that t.ire accused No' 05 / I{hadim Hussain Kalwar Sub Bngineei, District Highway Sub Division Daherki District Gholki, remaineci posled as Sub-Engineer, District Highrvay sub Division Daherl<i District Ghotki fiom 26.09 .20i3 to 30.06.2015. Duri,g his posti,g he in connivance with accusecl l'1o.1,3, LO,L2, 1'l & Siraj Ahmed (contractor) intimaterl/ recorrled MBs on the site aIter measurement, tirerea-fter it was verified and checked by AEN then by XEN. Accorcling to PPWD report accused I'{o'5 became instl:umental for recording excessive mea'suremepf, as worl<s executed at site are found less than the measllremenl- recorded ir-r. MBs al.}d substalCard. Accusect No.5 r,villfull-"' failed to exei-cise his autlroriiy to preve trt the grant arlr-1 renderecl undue benefit/ favor whicle he cottld liave preventeci by exercise of his autirority, ciue to his omission and misutst' oi t-ri" authority he car:sed loss and gains occulred ol Rs' l. OB, 46,564/- (One Crore Eight Lacs Forty Six'l'horisancl Five i-lundred and Slxty Four Rupees) to the national exchequer. ! His individual liability & gains is of Rs.i0, 84,656/-".

3i. Pelitioner No.3 was involved in thc same 4 schemes a"i petitioner No.2 wlaose deficiericies have beere :lentioned above irL respect of petitioner No.2

32.We see no need to re-iterate those deficiencies/misuse It authority/failure to exercl se authority again as they irave been alreacly set out above. Petitioner No.3 was a Sr-rb Engineer'and uvas ,). more senior to petitioner i{o.2 sc to that extent ire bears grea.{.ei' Cn esponsibiiity tl,ran petitioner No.2. Even otherwise ,rve find tha.t ese cases are on the sarne Iooting and since there is sufficieiit ateriai on record to prima taci.e connect irim to the contntlssic,n c,f \!,i

btL

t"

the offeirse fcr whrclt he iras been ch;ulBerl ai:il r1i3 i1;1vs founcl no t;: i

rra-lalide on tl-repart of lil\B iris pre ajt't-s;1, i,ir'ul is ii':l-'.:bY recallecl'

33.Petitioner lilo-a (Syed A1i Na-se.er" ShaLr 'rafi-eri) tras been gtvetr ar specific role at para 9 of the reference whicir r-ea'ds as utrder:

"9. The Investigation Report revea-ls that the accusecl' No.O6/Syed Ali Naseer Shah Jriffery' Sub Bngirreer Provincial Highways Division Sukkur remained.i:osted as Sub-Engineer, provincial Fligl:way Sub Division Sukktr-r froizl.OS.2Afi tc date' During his posting lee in cotrnivance with accuserl l\tro-2,'1 Bi Sira.; Alinled (coretractor) initiated / recorded MB on the si1-e alter rneasurem.ent, ancl thqrearter it \Mels rrer-ificcl atrcl cirecked by AEN and then by Xlllii '^'ccordiug to PPWD report acclsed No.6 becane instruirrenta-l .for recording exiessive measurement, as r'vrrrhs eriecuted at site and found iess than the measuretnent recorded in MBs and substandard. Accused No,6 r,villfully failed to exercise his authority to prevent the gralt iurd rendered undue benefit/ favor-rr' r.vhicir 'he could have preilented bv exercise of his authority, due Lo his omission and rnisuse of his authority he carused ioss and gains cccurred of Rs.11,10, 131l- (Eleven I,acs Ten 'lhousand .l One Hundrecl Thirty One liupee's) to the national exchequer. His individual liabiiity'.&, gains is of Rs'i' ) i,ol3 I -" .

34.Petitioner- No. 4 was respousible for' ,:nr,, scirernc r,.,rhich i,r,".rs the WIR of Road lrom FIaIeii NIP checl< irost up Lo 3/3 IrFi? l'f i"lsl & watch to"ver the report on r,vhich'worl< cer-n be iouncl at'P 1':''7 of thc Report. This work was aLso tire responsibiitty of petrtionet 11o.1 arrci since ure have let cut the cleijcieirtries jn iLte r.vorl<liailurt:'.o cxercise aUthoritylrnisuse oi ar-rthorii:y itr r"esi:ect of pctitroner No. I ,l s mentioneci earlier in this order u,c: find no r;eeci to reiterate the "l-si,+re. I{e also applied for a voluntary Return wi-iich u'as r-cj':cteci by !' .'l; ",

ihe NAB althor-igh 1r,rs l;11re not col'rsir-lelecl',,i'js aspect.it.l. it lrr:P,-ative it I al-l l-I e r

("'t3

35, The petitioner Nc.4 being sub ensil-r.eer \,vas a-lso a senior and responsible officer and aithough junio to Petitioner No'l we find tl-rat the satne considerations apply to him' Thus, since in our view tirere is sulficient rnate ria-l on re cord to cr:rntre c:t hiln to the cornmission of the offense for whicir he has been charged ancl t-herc has be en r-ro mala-fide or-r the part ot' ]iAB iris irrterir-n pr e arrest bail is lrerebv recailed.

36.Petitioner No.5 in cPD 187212016 is Javed Ali shaikh'-*'ho has been given a specific roie at Par47 cf the reierence which reads as uncler:

"7. The Investigation Report reve;lls t hat the accltsed No. 04/Jaweed Ali Sheitch Assistant Engineer' Provincial Highway Sub Divisiolr Sul<kur, .remained postecl as AsJistant trngineer at Sub l)ivision Suki<ur ironr 26.l2.2OlL to 22.A9.2015. During his incumbency in the period of Jameel Ahurecl Quresl-:i & Gurl I-Iasseur Bx-Executive Engineer, in conniva-llce '"r'ith accused No'

-J5

7,2, 6 to 9, 11 Lo 16, 13 (& 5 others who opted PB)' accused No.4 verified lhe MBs of 14;< schemes after measurerrrent at the site. Oir his verificatiorr and approval, XEN allov.'ed'tlre ilayment to contrac[ors' Dur-ii:g his posting, as pel PP\\rll--) report, tire executed works were found substandard ald belo"v the specification as recorcled jn llBs. ,A.ccused No.4 ririlllullir failed to exercise his,authority to prevent the graut an':i rendered undue benefiti [a',,or which l-rc courld Jrai'r: prevented. by exercise of his lawful author'1t1', due to lris omission and misuse of aulhority he caused loss and gains occurred of Rs.i,rr r.85,9221 (Orre Crore Sixty Cne Lacs trighty Five Tircusand Niree Hundrecl Trventy Two) to the national excnequer. I{is individual liability & gains is of Rs.24, 17, 88Bi -".

Petitioner No.5 vza-s al AtrN tr,ho ll,as involved in 14 different es and we han e been informeci that ire appiied for- VR rt'hich

,. I

tv;r,t r,,,aataCl h./ il i:, i'ir\B altl-tor-11fr ;rr.1r-'lr ilir trilitliCaitctr l-ras trc'i l)ecrl l,.-rlierr 1ti- us 61-r a l';-16',-'1r r': ,-l e .-et i-rt-.,tii't: I ltc 1-,ei itiori.

38 T1-ic road COnStt:ucLloni r-epatr wol-j{S -,1'h rc'lr he u;lts 11lvL)[\rf d 1]l carl be fouucl at P.137,145,14 i',i'I{),15t,1'<3,155'157,151-'' 1,rJ,163,i55,167,and L67 of the ltepor',

39.We have studred thc reports aL the :fcre.;aid pergcs,""'hicll c,tr ,rL-r e ruhole shorv a m.a.ssive and contilluous failu.re to e,<el ct:;e atttl-rolltr,/rnlsLtse of authorit-V by netriioner No..5 u'iticti favore ci errrcl .t urrrl-tiy bepefit:ci Cgntractors all,j caus:r,l lcss trr tllc:,-r:Ltr-;t'1,-, I rlxCheCluel:. A uUmber Of titcSe (tonti a(--t-j1 r; havC ,rit'" ,t-l1' 6'111,'r 1'1'l ,;-1r'-r piea bzu-gains r,vith the NAB u'lrtci-i ).i,-,\tr's1'(-i- ts',lot llle s'.''l..l deternrining factcr in connectrotr r",tLh his pt-ttttorr.

-10 T'hus, itt our vierv there is prtnra facie srttfi,-:teut nraler,al ',; l' ccirnecl petitioner itlo.5 to Lhc ttlicnsr:1cr r'"'i:ttci-r h'.- l:; chal-ged.rircl .sincc'thcre hal. l--,een no malaficlr:s ou the pa.rt of tlte IIIAB llrs tntcrirn:l-e a-rrest bail hereir-i, staltcls rr: c arilt'il

41 Learned counsel in CFD No.2;q17/\6 f'or Petitioi:e,r No 6 IVIi'- Ghulanr Shabir Solangi (accr-tseci 116.!.i in iLrc rr:fcr.:r-t,.'e) ulr, the tlrac ol the ollense u'as S.-,b Errgnccr'PHI)S subnr[tr:cl i',, lretiLror-rer No. 5 r.r,'is innoceirt crf an-,;.\,'ic)n{ dr-,ing,. l:}rat the schct,'rc r,rras r:ru-riecl ollt as per worl( ord.il- alrcl Liiar if ;r-n.' clarrr nge hacl t-rr:,- rr can-ised to the roads ther; i1-r.Ls; u'as Lln arrc(lLi t of Iatu or v',c.r-t- Alt,l tca;- srrce 1\ALj's r-e1;oi't harcl be,:-i ':;ri'l--r (,i Li) rii.'r-{l,c ,i;lllp.,a rvas complcteii. In supl-)ol-t cf l-,rs ctrtrl-t--nl-Lorr that tl icr r',rac-i l-.,r bcct: r-o.npletcd,.cr the lcqtrrr-ecl sL.itcia:ri le;.i'r:,r.d r:r,,.iiticl 1tl.,ir:,'r'

I /2 , '.,

leiiance oll thr: ''Q6'1rsr-1'.ni6;11i ,l- iVesi Pa]rislan. t-ligh'-r'ai'l- T)epartmr.'ots, I:-r sr r.iuclic,irs ot., Ir.i1.;i rwr,r', tr)er:Lei-iaja{ alttl cotrstruc(iot'r' date,l 19C-,9. He tlicl not plead antlr mzriafir,ie o1l tile part o1'Itlalj llorl horve,,,eL he submitterl thal for,.he ibove rcaso1)s hls pre tlr-r-el;l slrould bc confirmed.

42 Petitroner No.6 has been given a speciltc rtllc at 1:.'u'.'r 12 ctl L1 't

reference rvhich reads as under:

12.The Investigation l?epo::t t.er,ea.ls tirrrt L]-re ;1CCL1S,.-,.'l No. 09 / Ghulam Shabbir Solangi rcmained postecl as sub-trngineer at Provincral 5116-pivisiouSt-tklru| fl-ci'-l]r 31.L2.2Ai3, to 30.06'2014. Accr-tse d No 09 rtr cot]ttivance rvitli accused No l,/.t t.urct' I-lafcczuLl'rh (Contractor) initiate C / recol ded Nf B on the sttc 'r'i"'i:;. lreasurement, amcl t1-ren tltci:ealter rL rvets ',;crilieci i.6 ar-l, i

checl<ed by AtrN ancl tl-r.err by )(llll' /r\ccol(ll1lg Pit'11/i') report accused No.9 bec.arrre r'nstrr-tniet.rlai Ior r,l^ortlti,i-i excesslve measlirernent, as .'vor'J<s crecLll t'tl at st['- :i' 'l founci less tharL the measurclncnt recorried ttl I"{lll; irtr'.1 substandard. Accusecl Nc'. 09 rvillfirilv Ii-ttli:ci trl (l')i'-1'( i i' It his autie o r-i tl,r' ttl prevent the grar-rt anrd rellde t-e'i '-ttlrli''lt" ber-refit I favor rn'htcl-l he could ha ve l-rl-er-r:trtccl c'xercise of his authoril-1', du'-' to his ornjssloll i''.ril lllsuse of his authorrty l:e causeci loss & $&Il]si o{)t'Ul r''11 oi Rs.15,53,596/- (Irifr.een Lacs liifty 'l'iirce T1'rot-t'; r ''l Fi.,'e Hundrcd a.nd i'lir-rety' Si.x Rr-lllees) to tirc r''''il'.' e;rchequer I{is rndi,nclual liahriity & gail-rs 's 'ri , l

43.I'IAB has primarily reliecl oii a Technrcal ReporL darted 'q't' .)u1y 2015 by r"irc XEIiI Central Civii Divisron l)erl.lsta.n Putbl;,: \[]t,r,<s Department, Goverlmer-:.t of Pai<isian (Tire Rcpor-t ll, t-ei'ci-i(.).1 til earlier In this order) r,r'hich remarned ahnosl colnpLct'-'1,-' undamageci 'Juring the ar-g3rrrents b5' a-li the petitror-rers (r1 rlrcv c.l.-rallengcci rt at all) .

,-ili\ v.l j',_rNi 'ln

I J b!b

44.il'he Report vias prepared otr the fcllorvirlg basis as set out itr the Report v,rhich states as under

,R,DPOI??

This report is submitted in regarrl of National Accountability Bureau, Airport Road Sukkur, vide letter No. 72OOl4 /IWlCOlNAB (SI()/2015/742 Dated 10.07'2o15 and vide Aclminjstrative Officer, Chiel Engineer (S) Office' Pak PWD, Karachi, letter No.72 6 I 252-\,Yl I NAB / I 830. I(ar-achi, tl-rc': lOtt Jrrly 2015.

This report cbntains oibservations arising from thr: physical inspection and scrutiny of records as p.ointed out / prowided by Inquiry Officer NAB Sukkur respectivelir' Th.e purpgse of this report is to provide tcchnica] assistalr.ce to Inquiry Officer NAB Sukkur. In this regarrl insBections ./ site visit and scrutiny of record werll carried out'.

' Following members were Present during the course o1 visit and scrutiny of record:

i.' Mr. rshahzada lmttaz Ahrned, Additional Director' .L NAR Sukkur.

2- Mr. Samar I{ussain Qadri, Deputy Director, NAB Sukkur.

3.Mr: Kha-tid Hussain Shaikh, Executive EnSirreer', CCD, Pak PWD, Sukkur.

4.Mr. Imran \Rasool Qureshi, Sub Engineer, CC,'Pak PWD, Sukkur.

5.Mr. Jawed. Ahmed Kalhoro, Assista:rt Execlttir,'e Engineer, Provincial Highways Division Sukkur.

6.Mr. I{hadim l{ussain Ka-hvar, Sub ' Engineer Provincia-l Highways Division, Sukkur.

7.Syed Ali Naseer Shah, Suk, Engineer, Provitlcitii Highway Division, Sukkui'with other non technical staff..

Randonr checking was carried out and meth.od of chechs was simple / hanr{t'eel Lest which provirlerJ r useful guidance during the inspection. The purpose of this report is to provide technicat asststar:ce to Inquiry Officer, NAB Sukkr-rr in pursuance to above reierred inquiry (details a"'r c nclosed)

I

The detailed report of site visited is sr-rbmitted herer.r,itl-r for hrrther necessary action. (boid erddect)

YI

a , t'1

,l

ilrrraur I?asooi Quie s;f i Iih al irl I-Ir-tss:rit t lihari'l'r Sub Engincr:i l}'iect ttrve Et I gtt i l e,.

Ccirtral Civrl Drvision Cc rttr-ai Civil. Ilrvi r;r,rrr Pal<rstan PWD, Suki<ttr Pa.k,stan IJWD. Sr-Ll<lcLr r.

45 Thrs reporl- and its va-.jor-rs sitr: vrsrrs a.:ld N,II'-l llool;s st-1rl'rt ,-'.n,J coitstdc-rcd ts; corroboral,,:d l:i' {.ht: S L6l (lr.Pf ' s1':rlr';neirl lvlr. Imr-ern Sha-rrrs, M1 Itnran Iir;sool tJur.csi-ir. irlr'. I(i-r:'ilrtJ llLl-:r'' S1-raililt, il{r Riaz Ahine cl and li4r'.Ri'rliclue Sh:Ii<l r irnc[ v, e ]r.i,'.

ah-eady ear-lier in this order found the sarC l1epoi-t L'l ile prc-piit'e rl lr tire relevir:lI profcssrouar,ls attd to be botl-r l'eljal:lc lrrrci otll- l,tcu, lt i.s also srgnificir:rt tlrei. lLo rnajafrcte has i,cetl allt'pr rl agait'ts't ti're cotnpiiers/stgnatories .,-rf i-he R-enr,r'-t lrl; -ttll' ,.-'l- i-l ' pcLitioners

L lr-,. P. l45 of ':1le i?eport concei-ns 1,he ';r'o1e '-t- i"lr','lrir''Irr''| ] I'Jc,.il 11-nu ccrncerned wtth and bY n.ra, lar-ge sttgil,lsis, [l-.:rt ]l-rc r';us ceLriied out to a i'easonable si.aircJa-L,i hort,evr:t. 111 (l1lr'/lcr-' tc thc' t-eqt-lired standard since trrrth'in ll r/cc1-r ol- 1ts cr,rrtsit-ric',-ir;r allpcars t1-ral it i-ieeds consicl(irallle nr.lrni,lttlUlrrc ',\ rlri:. Wir,,ri lTIOfe appar-e11t trom I-1-re Rct:orL L'ot.zer,'CL Lrr tl'Le l-e It-, ai-I.. -s (--C,lr,rtll rvas that the'"','ork was ov'lrcl-largei tc',r. Whrle thc rartt': shoulrj ll.r been 3tr50.23 rt u,as chan-ged at ahrrosi doui..,le the ral.e i.e. 77?.li "' E r,,l-rich \4/ers corirpleteh un-justrfir',:l. \I"Ihelr coi-,frorL1-crl r,',.ii h t i' ', ,ti'cicharged aulount pei.itioner No.c had r-io e)lplarr.rtiol'r. It ts,'lc ', i.h.L'.. r^,rlti1:lL allor,l,ing tirc crtnlr'aCterf -ro cr','c l-rlh at'*c [ol i-hr' ,"1r'i. -'pcl,rtioner- Nc 'r rni:.user--l hrs i-rr-:th,-rr-1-', .Lnci li,Lilct-l 1-9 c''i-1-, i5,' i-.

(i/'j:

ll,

ar-lthor'ttv Lir-Iri as such in 0r r:i. \Iii:\l; prilnct I'acte there appear-s ic, i,,' ';r rl'frc-ic'n1, r:,trtel-iil Jtl r-r'r-t)l-r-i i,t; r'r,1tu c'.-. i Itr-'tt1-ttllrct No.i: to trl',- o'ifr:ttr;r: fot'u,hich he is cl-rargt-cl . It ts also 1ler1 irleni tc obscr-ve tl'r.rI the conccrned contractor u'i-io recervecl thls over Pal"lllrjll1 I enterecl in1.o a^ Piea, Bargain (PB) r,vrth the NAB urd has tltcr-ei';r.r:

admitleci }-us gr-ri1t in this ove r-char ging

47 Thus, since titere iras been no malaftcle on beirajl'oi tl'rc l'J.\t'l and tltere 1S plima facie in Otlr vieu,Sllffrclelil: rnaterta-l i'e 1-1-r1-1r'"'r-'l petitioner No.6 to the offense rvith r,r'hrch hc' ls cheLrgeci lll l',r reference his pre alrest bail is her:eby reca1lcci

,lil. i,czrrmcd counsel in CPD No.23I7116 for petitioner Nc.7 l1{r. Abciul Rab Shaikh (accttsed Nc 7 tt-r tlte rcl'ercnce) rirr; "r'i-,u,,t1 trrne trf thr: offense ryvas Sub Ergineer PI-IDS '.lubrnitl ,'('-i rl, petitioner No.7 -was innocent of rrnv 1\/ro11g dotng, l-i-i.rt tI:r: .'111,",rt

L

rvas c,lrrled cr-rt as per ',l,orli ordel a;'rj '.i-rai 1l,s r-.-,1t' it,a., r.)rl vcr11ftr 1,lre measurerrrents and no1, io m.-J.:e tl:crn :rit.-1 rt,t ril atbove r-e asons his pre aJ-rest baui sirouid i:e ccrnhrrnc-,i l-le ilr,.l plcad majafides on the par-L oi NAB

l! l)etitior-ier- No-7 l-ras been qrvei-: a spc'crlic role al l,rara l(l ,,'l l-c[crr:lrce u'hic]r reads as uaclcr

"10.T1-re hrvestrgat:ion ReporL r"evea,is ttrat Lh<: A.r-'r,.,/,l No. 07 / Abclul .Ra}: Shailrh Sub-Enginccr l-hgl-,iv.,1,., Dir.ision Sukkur rerrrarilecl posted irs Srrb-F,rr;1ir',.,ri'. 1'' j.l ,r{ighr,vai,- Sub Divisior-r Srtlikur lrcm 27 .92 )itt, ,: 'r; i '' ?.,1.a7 2075 Du;ins h:s postlrrli he' tn ct,t-r1ii\-o, rr .- ',', ,i l, accused flo i..i.12,14 tc ,j* lv{a:-;rr,o. ,\l'' : ;, I i;

(coilt:actor-) :i-rr1-rate,j ,/ recor-:ieil LiB clr ihe '; Lr' ,r, .; mcasllrerne ir L, dird there.iiler ii, rlras e;-Ltle- ci ,lltt I ',, r:l-recked by AEli eld Lheil b.i, XEl.l. :\ccor-cirr-rg 1o Pl'r')vl,; ,i

(, !;r

.i:c::.1:llt rcp,rit- Ji-ct-lli,j,.l No.li illsr-i-Jroe Ilti'1 l'o1- l-c(-l'ri'-ll1l;' '31- sltc l.tr' excesslve mea.surcmerli, as ivo'i:l'is c,,.;cclltq'1 f,tr,uta lcss :h"rn t},e tn r..r:;ril'L-m.i tl L -(1,- ol'J('r-i il r N{IJ:'; Lr-i'l s,.lbstar cian-ci Accusecl No. 7 r.r'rijIull-t'' farlccl lc' elle I LrIje -t111(lrle iris autiroriLy tC preve[t thc gl.al]t ancL i'ellclerctl benefit f f'avor r,vhici-r. lte coulcl ilave preventecl b1' exercise of hjs author-ity, dr-rc to ilis.,)1111.is1(-\i1 i-r11(l inisuse of hi.s authoriLl' lle cc'rlsccl loss ald Halrls occurrecl of Rs.4 5, 29. =4 I I (Fc'l t1' Fivc L'atcs T'u"crt l'-rt

Ntr-re Thousands Five I-luilclred. rlnd For';r' oue llt-tpce'rt tothenationa]exchecluer.H.lsin.Lividl'rlLjIrtllltltLr.ll-t p;arns is of Rs.4, 52,954 I-".

50 lt'""els 1:etrticner No 7's obllgtrlion as sub cngllle'r i(-) trtrt''t['';' anci vertfy the rr.,ori(s being cai-rie d ou1. b-v the corlLrrti 1'-rt' ()'i

stte.P. 1rr-( of the R.eport mciicates Ll-ra1" a-^ irrillr llr:tittotlel l!o {i i-r'

.J.iou,ec1 ilfassi\iq overchai'gttrg for th.- r,riori- 1]''-rr'"!':r:' c'trrier-l ctll

I\4ost cr,rcia-Ily the Colun]n qu?xltitY a: -per sitc lras l]cen lcfl lllrt'''i:

q,hrclt has aliolved the oyer Char-gitlg r)'y 1-1)'i 'j()rrLl'.1ClLil- \\'i'llr--ll '/ r'-' causeC b.,' i-tis lnisuse of authority= :rnd iailiu-:' to c:)i'-r'r'rr'L L :lttl-tor.i1-r,.p.6 i of il-re refelenCe ShOr4rS Lha'. hC tvaS i,tvrrii'c:d Lrr ,l S:lrcrle:r in,itere Sucli over char gtrrg -'l,'aS e)llour('cl . l-r'1 lt.itrtlr r l"' ' likc'Petiironer f{o.6, has iloi pleaC rc;lie$des ot.: lLit'1;arl r-'f i'iA[-] , '"' li1 oul: vielv there ts Sufficient ruaterta.i ic pritn:t Iaclc cotrtrccl irl'r' ,,r,rtl-r the comltlissLon of the ofir--rrse . l\s 'r,tth.lietitlorLet I'lo.b ti-,c' coltcerned contracior has aireaciy etite'acc1 ltl.tur Pl3'wilh Lhe N"tI-1 .-,"'-;

letultted the rilegalllr acquired ga;l.l-s -,'"1rrci-l L;c inr+de- 5i Thus, stltce thel-e has beeli rLo rna-iailde orl belialf ol tire NA'tr ald there is rrritna facte in our sufilc,,ent trta-ter LaJ to coLul':ct -li l, i,,;.,i ltetitioner No.7 to the offcnse r.iriil-i wlrrciL he js chargetl lu tl-r':

r-e lerctrc,: his prc clnesl, baji ts hrreby r-eci-rlle:d lt)

I b2b

52.Learned cou-nsel in CFD 1Yc.2319/16 for petitloner No'8 Mr" llllazir Ali iaccused No.10 in the r:efereuce)'uvho a.t the time of the offense was a contractor- submitteci that he had fully completed, the construction of the road ancl ' as such he had received ittll ( payment in respect of the work. He also submitted that the r.r,orl< had been carried out to the requirecl stafldard. He relied on tlre statement of Riaz Ahmed in support ol his contentiot'ts. I-Ie did not- plead malafides but contended that he was totally innocent of a-irr" wrong doing and as such his pre arl'est bail should be confirmecl .

.ti Petitioner No.B has been given a specific role at para 13 of the refcrence r,vhich reads as uuder

"13.TJre Investigation Report revea-ls that the accused Nc' 10 / Waiir Ali Mahar Pioprietor of M/s Wazir Ali Mahar, is ;' Governinent Contraitol artd accr-rsed No.10 in coltnivatrcc rvith accused No.1,3 & 5 received payment against fuli )e ngtii of road rvhereas, according ttl PPWD repori at site oniy fr9']i; oi ,t.

the road length was available. Therefqre accused No'1,3 8': 5 by misuse 6f authority, mislnqloqriateci the Governnetrl Fund & gains occurred of Rs.3O,77,29O1 and accused No. iO is involved in misappropriation of governrnent fund r,vhici't res'ultecl in loss to the exchequer and his liability & gains is ,:rl Rs. 1 5,38,6 45 / -."

54.Tire majn ailegation against petitioner No.8 rs .Llrart he onit' burilt 69%o of the.roaci for whrch he rvas given full pal,menl- a.i; ii l.re had fi,rlly completed'the roacJ.

i trE -)J , P.179 of the Repor-t under the heading technical obsen'ations connection with the concerned road reads as under:

"The road is coustmcted in desert area. Durirlg site visit, detail measurements were taken wherein the quantum of work in terms of the road fbund lesser thart

(,)l

the rrreasured ln iv1.-c The exectition of road over length of 6850 Rft is reccrdecl iri IviB while at site'about 4722 Rfl fcund cxecutc:d. I'he over payment of the road for 2128R.ft whieh is e-Lout 317o made on acconnt of road constructions"" (bold added)

n 56. The statement of Riaz Ahmed is of iittle, if any, assistance to petitioner No.B and in our view the findings in the Report clearly show that tl-re r-oa,cl was not ful1y completecl ancl yet petitionel No.B ino tl-re 1-ras been pajd the full cost of constructing road' As such the road. sur in oltt'

view petitioner No.p has been the beneficiary of a misuse of authority/fa-ilure to exercise arrthority a:.ld has been undrlirv benefited and favored by such ovef payment through the misuse of authority/failuri to exercise autiroritl by othel official co-accused ru}rich r,vould have'been: obvious on a sirnple site inspection. As such in our vievf since.there has been no mala-fides on the part of /. NAB and there is sufficient material to connect tl-re petitioner Nc..J to the commission of the offense his pre arrest bail is herel:.v recalled

57.Lea.rned counsel in CFD No.2334/16 for petitioner No.? Mr" Abdul Rehman Katyper (acc'rsed No.B in the reference) who at the Lime of the offenserwas sub engineer submitted thaL the road irad been constructed as per requirements A1l cats elres had beer^L put in placc and if tl-ley v,'erc rto,.'.r n',issing thcy hacl been.stolerr bv -l ..- villagers. With regard to the mau-tung ol lines orr t}'re roads lre ,..i

'\\'.. subrnitted 1.hat this was a bus-v road and that the line marl<ings :\.-11 .,i . :.rl i, -'fhacl nou' beei-r rubbeci olI by the passing traffic. i-le submrttecl tlrai.

. i-re had i-rot comnritted an-.y'-wrong dcirrg. iL-lat NAB had no ilateri:.ri \i,

a.qzrln-sL jrjtn :'itii tjiaL C\i3it ;'.iI,:rI;js,.. lie';'.'Ls,-tlLtticcl io tht: lrei'r ir t;i t-lre ,.-tolr bL

5E. Petiironr:i: No.9 itas lteen glvcti .l tiirCr')rfir-'r'r](-) ul 1;lrI .r 1l ol tll r-el'e rctrce r^,htch reads e,s I lltLier

"l 1. The lr-rvestigal-ic',n Reiloi:1- l-eve.^ls ti^';Lt tht- lr-c1-lst'cl l\i'; 'r-' ,/ Abdul Rchrnarr K:rtpcr, SuL' Engi-neeI, [)r-crvir''t i""1 l-l:ril'l''r '' S"rb Dir,'rsiot'i Stli(l{ur rernaillcai 'roliLcd a:l Srllr l1i-tl.,-lt.t':r'' .': Provinctai Hiqilrvav suib Divisiori, Sltlil<trl- ii .>n" []l'0-i ''ll-t I I "r Itl c)2.2t'16 Accttscd I'l'-r 09 11-i .(.'1-r1lj'/illCL' "'"'ttlr 111 r-11' rl No i.4,i1.13,16, 1B arC ?\an'c:cl ;{j-rirlecj 'lt (-i lrrrlanr ivitrr "''' '':ir'r' lColttt acior) lnitiated / t'cctl-tl1l(-l l\1IJ ')lr t.i-t": ;'Li'- measllr,llnent, al-ld i-herezritcr 1L lvi-is \/e]'Ifle cl i-Ji](l cll'l'-L''c "'' AEN anrci ther-i b;'l{trN' .\ccoicilng tr' PP\!'D i-ep(\l-L ;16l-i15r'ci 8 becaiue it-rstrurrrel-lt a1 fr-r r- rcccrt-,-lillq t'rcqs:live Il c)'-)'Iil it cii r L'

I

irs !'.'()r'l(S exectltecl {il Sil-e lLf': frri-lttti ir-'r.'s ti l:rn ir lltcasl,lJ-(llncni recoi.deC tll iviU:-l ct1-lal -j',-lbstaljclalrj t\'-':it:'r' j )1" :.1 r',,i11i]-lii)' iailcd tc ex3ictsr l.l::, zrutlr,trir--':/ (.(-) l-)i'\l'"'('nL 1ll,' ,:'" a1tc1 131-rclcred uncluc !:e:i,t'itr- ,i i;1r':1r1 rvl'r tL-ir ltt rl''tilr-i pre vt:tt're d i)y exerc:se oI h s a--lui't'li-lir' 1'.r- rt) llt" 'r'llj i 1'l i

anci 1ttlsl-tse ot' ht:r ar-r th ol-ii 1.' l:,' c..r-i:;c.-, i'lrl, i; iii^'ril r "r ''l o1'Irs.39,l2,6;5'+l (Eight'r'liilne'Lile- Nlt'lc':t'l'\\IL' Il-IUtl-'-rL:!' I i Jr_inclrec.l iriftJ' l-our llr-.1115.'151 lo 1-ltc ;.rr.-tirtLral ,'."1,'i1r'1111or ;, ,r. rnCi';idri:rl liablirl-''r & garns i:: r'i fts a"', C)9,.,5:i .l'etrtrc.ner No.9 a SLtb ?r1gtr'('cJ '.'.'^'. c rril i, Lh r.- i:r:l-sc,, r;i .r,ltos I r,bligatrori r.,"'as i;o rnoititr-r- '1-l-r rt i',c l'it bctL,l,j Lloilc at1(-l .:'t, .r I' 'rhat r'; r,\rzrs ul) t., ihe re'tuiier-j sL*rcir,r-C and r:,rtl1-oi-nleci'i'ili ;l,t r'.'o; li rri clcr-. l-ie neccled iii rec,:rcl .rll .i'.t lv'iB's a,r rd e11l,Lr, e illi ir ",',ll-li ci(ll-iL 1,',',.'r.s Cjl1i-ccLlj, nle t-i[],-,tltri rlt lil:: i-:-luv'i--'1\i, lloUl'.. l,r l'-r , tri \\ras irr-i/olved ru 7 schernes D,,'inij s!-ri'-ri-ics to li rrr P.!,!; j^e1arc1--cc ,1i grf .,r,hrci-t ca.rse(l lcl;s l.o lltr: C.':C1lea Lt.j1- fi '.-i c r'o ',[1, ., r r r st:r1d:r;-d ,vcr-}-, iacli cr: i-u'ork ul' o\re1 1)r-rcii-t?, l:lr tj tt: (,-,tlilii(lr ':abc,,r-1ri- oi iric rxis1.ise t)f zLut'l-ir-,rl I ',t,'l a; i lrr-c t'-'t:;.::': c'1:jr-' r.'.r li)t'-;:-tl-,

,l

60.P.147 to 159 show the scheffres that'he rvas involved in and amply illustrate his misuse of autl-iority andlor his failure to exercise authority which lead to loss to the national exchequer ald undue favour being given to contractors Saeed Ahmed & Ghulam 1 N{urtaza

61.For exarnple, at P.I49 of the Report concerning the W/R o[ roacl from Rohri Arrore Salehpat the technica-l observations were as under

"The major payment is involved in the items of Cat-eyes and Reflective Paint lines. During site . inspection reflective paint line found vague as the sclleme being years old but in terrns of quantum of rvorh recorded in MB differs from the quantity anrl pattern att sitc' As per MB such items has bee_n exeCuted over' 16 miles of road.'During random walk through survey of about I I(M of rtad for-tncl about 85 No cat-eyes curnula[iveiy over three lines (one centre and 02 side line s of reflecting lines) affixecl on road using nails only while L no traces of sticlry/glue material in order to bond the contact area of cat-eyes and road. This is based on the items found at site at that'time in respectivc of quantity. Reflective pairet iines found 1O ft strip 20' apart for- center line while tu,o lines on either side of tl-re road found continuous. Thc quantity of strip found at site differs as recorded in MB."(bold added)

62.Under the column remar-l<s on the same page it is shoru-r tl-rat the numbei of .cats eyes rvhich were used was less than tI-re required aJnount. which had been pard for: and were not even spaced as per requii-ements. Liker,visi: the road. Iiues were l1ot as per .t requirements and most of them were not visible u'hich suggests at either they were not done at aLl or'"vere of sub standard quality have disappeared after only one year. The required-No. of.strips

I

r,r'ere a-lso missing. It is also pertinent that most of the contractors .v/,',

b7q

3l

r,Tlr have entered into plea bargains and have paid back their illegally :rcclurred gain

io3. Petitrr:ner No.9 did nol- plead rla-lafides on the par-t of NAB 1 64. In our view plima facie tleere is sufficje nL materlal ot.r recorcl to connect petitioner No.9 to the offense fot- rt'l-ricl-r tte lras heer-t char-ged. we have founcl r-ro ma.iafide on the parl o1' NAB rI'id accordingly I-ris pre arrest baii is reca1led.

65.The case of Petitioner No.16 Mr. Faiz Mohammed (Accused No.18 in the reference) in CPD .2318/2016 ls 110\^/ being ta_l<en up. as his case is interlinked rvrth petrLtoncr lrlo.9, r,vhose case we have just discussed above, tn that peLittotrei- No c.)

r,vas the Concerlted sub engineer for thc r,vorks u,htch pettttotlel- No.16 carried out as a contractor. As noted above r'r'e have alreaclv /l recallecl petitioner No.9's interim pre anest bai1. Learned cotttlsel for petJtioner l'io16 made srmilar submisstotts to thaL oI petitiorler No.9. In particuiar he stressed that tl-re sample of one I(M of a 26 I(M road ."vas too small; that the inspection had been carriecl ottt afler tr.r,o yea-r-s: that the technrcal report rvas defective ag it clid not star,te r.r,lrether tire road surveved wa,s straught or clrrvecl; that thc:

carts eves and road markirrgs I'rad ertl-ier la,llcn off or beer-r rubbed off as Lhe road was heavily use d by ti affic; that he rvas innocent cf arr)'

.Y

'"r;ror-rg doir-rg; that his Forn-r 28 stateinettt irad been srgnecl oft by al -. ,i -:

,:*,:,i ,\ ,t, ;l&:

t*8rt X EN r,;ho had rrct been rncluded in the reference r.r'hich slrou'ed i,i+-E ih3 malafide on the pa:.t of ITAIJ u,l-rich v,as; clearly proceecling otr.r picli -:'l EiHE ;^[i t v ,. i' :! il ::1iail *i-*!

i-'t

i.., - -.^

!".r.4

L..

h29

t.l t-,,1

i.d

Fq - -.t lli

zurd chcose basis aurd thus for a-11 the abovc reasons Petltiorler ilr No.I6's pre arrest bail shouicl be confii'tned .r4

66.As witir petitioncr Rs.9, petitionei- Rs'16 has been gtven a speciflc roie at Pata 2l of the reference wl-rich realds as under: itl -1 tt

"The Investigation Report revea-ls that tl-re accttsr:cl Int No.lB / Faiz Muhammad is a Governmcnt Contractor 't / / Pr oprietol- of M/s )raiz & Co' tu couuivarece 1\rllh !^j accusecl Rs.1, 4 & 8 is rnvolved in mist.tse ol au.[horlty (a- and rrisapptopriation. Accuseci I'lo.I3 tutctrtlottall'1' unlawfully, rllegally frauduien[iy savecl Lhe nr-rrrber of .t 'r cat eyes by not affrxing the required number of cat e-\'es H't and also managecl to apply less qualrty o[ therno plastrc paint (reflector paint lines). Accttsed No.18 I Faiz :_i Muharmmad in connivattce \,vitll accused Rs'1,4 it 8 caused. loss to tl-re Natrona-l Excheqr-ier & gairis occurred to the tune of Rs.58,47,4'85/-. Ilis liabilitr' & gatt-rs is Il..

L\{.2,)

oo \ a').

Z'trt

;LO

t t4/ l_"

:'-'j ,ta,J 67 As fottnd earher 111 this order we find l1o defe cts ol r. '1 deficiencies in the Report which was comPleted by c-xperienced lr., l r&'t1 Ii1 officers a,nd has been tbund by us to bc botir rcliable and accllrlrte .!i J

'.T'i 'l'he pctitioner No.I6 had the full opporLr-tnrt1' to c.";pli'rirr hts posrtron

68.NAB has explarned that the colrcerned X EN 'wl-ro signed ofl-,-,rr pel:itiof iers F 22 is iacing separartc arrd wide reachlllg tuquitn \i.- rvhich aLso includes tl-re role he piayed in this case ar-Id as stlch u'e llnd t1-rat NAB has l-Iot proceeded on a pick ar-rd cl-ioose basrs and "i'r n$(t that there has beeh no maia{ide on thc peu-t of the NAB. For the 'it -t.

;,.rrrt'e &so s discussed above for petitionel No.9 in particular '"r'ith ;!Ei a {!rl ;+i--r I ;'i'egarcl to P. I 4 9 of the Ret:rort as reproduceci jn the above casc o[ ttlti )

irctitror-rer- No.9 r.r,e lincl tirat theru rs irrima facie sufficietrt materjal

L7L

r

t -'! -1

to connect the petitioner No.16 with the offerse for u,hich he has 'lavottr rvhrch i ,l been char.ged as he ha.s benefited from atr ttndtte I 1.1rr-ough his sult starLdard,"vor'l< caused loss Lo 1.1-rc r.rittiottl'.'i j

l, excleequer ir-r coliusion ancl connivance rvilh pe trt-rorler No 9 allcl i-l other co-accused. and stnce there has been uo r-nalalcle ou tile 1;art 3 olNABlveirerebyrecal]ti-relnterirnprearresl-barlgralrtedto ,l it petition,:r No.16 ear-liei- by this Court.

Y'

it ;i

69.Learned counsel in CPD No.2357/ 16 for petitioncr N.o'1O Syed Naseem Abbas Shah (accused.No-11 in the reference) ''t'ho at tl-re time of the offense was a contractor ,sr-tbrIlitted that thr: r'he rn,rlarrd.es of l.lAB rvas evident from the fact that the ntertbers ol 'even visil tl-re site' Tr:chnrca] Te arn l.vl-ro mad.c the Repoi t clici nof ,r,g

a!

.iil clrd not associate hi,o tn ti,. site vistt or the inqurry; tha1. tilcrc [-t:--r'cl ireen a delay in filing the l?eport lvhlcle accordtug to httn was vague 1.l.

a-r-rd. inadequate; and that ti-re rvork hacl been carried out as Per r,vork order and that the Mehral University had carflecl oul. a tcs1. iZ: I

:) on his beha-If which showed that the rt'ork ha.d Lreen comPleter.l ic Ll-re required stanclard aS per wori< order aurd there we\S Ilo evicic-rtcrt' against petitioner No.i0 who rvas absolutelf innocent of,any r')r-,1 1r1' dorng.

!c..1 :.. :i it'i

tai i 7t) Petrtionet No.1O has beetl g1ve1l a specil;'c roie elt para 1zi of the reference whtctr reads as u11der S-'a,":

'i\ "14. The L-rvestigation l?eport rcvea-is Lhat the accttseci No.lI/Syed Naieem Abhas Shah is a Governmcnt Contracior i Proplietor of NI/s Najal Errterprises ancl "'Y.rl t) )l accusecl No.11 in connivance r'vil'J I accused No 1'.4 r"'r' cS larleci to apply to requiled thickness ?' of Asphait \vhereas, accorcling to PI']WD reDort- zr1' site !o*

Y

bNl

t-irickness was {ixed and for:nd eurd the accused No' 1 i dlart,n payment lar 2,' (tr,vo inches) Asphalt- Tlrerefore ,-.".,".i No' 1,4 & B L'1' misr-rse of authorif-v in .or-rr.i,r*r." of each other misappropriated government il;-&-g;ns occnrrecl of Rs'74,13,6791- and accused No. 11 rls involved in misappropriation of government i".a-;rri"r, resulted loss io the exchequer and his liability & gains is of Rs'7,06,84O l-'"

71.Petitioner No.1Q is a governlnellt contractor and is a which hc beneficiary in that he received payment for a contract failed to perform aclequately in connivance/collusion with other co-

of thc:

accused. There is no evidence whatioever that the members site and technical team which compiled the Report clid not visit the tlrereportatP.l.5l.specificallystatesthattheydidma]<easitevisit arrdassuchwefindnosubstanceinthiscorrtention.Liker,visethe statement of petitioner No10 was taken prior to f,rliirg of the

reference so he was given the full opportunity of being heard a:rd

I

stating his position thus his argument that he was not associated rvilfi the case prior to the filing of the reference is atrso not susta-inable. In our view the report at P'151 fully shows that the petitioner has not carried out t1-le work as per work order il the following terms at P.i51 Technical observations' "The Schemc rs

comprised' of iaying of 2" Asphalt layer as major item of work' 09

random pits were taken where in the average thickness of carpet

found varying upto Smrn in about T5% pits''r[bold added) and i'e- 1O7o ,',] remarks "ln 75oh area, thickness found bit lesser avg Smm of required thickness" (bolcl aclded)' The qty as per site is also ' i'l

fou.ud to be blank v

bxz

F!.rtt l;.Llr' 72. We do not fincl the Repo;t to be vague or inadequate- On the contra-r5i ,*,e find it as earlier mentioned to be detailed but coucise

alcl carriecl out Ly professionals w'ho have been nanned' in the saicl

at the time report along with other professionals r'vho were present of inspection aned as such lve have already found it to -1 be reliable -tY and accurate. The Mehran Universi RePort which has l:een

:petitioner ir our view does not trllmp the Report pr,epared for the for and r,vas made after the reference was fiied so may be used defense purposes at trial

73.We find no malafides on the par-t :f NAB and since in our vtew t

plirna fa.cie there .is sufficierrt material on record to cot:tnect the

petitioner No.iO to tire oiT"nse as charged'iti" pt" arrest bail is hereby recalled.

/. 74. Learned counsel in cPD No-2374/15'for petitioner I'Io'11

CPD

Jawaid Ahmed Shailrh, (accused No' 12 in the reference)''in 4C.49/16 for petitioner No'12 Ameer Eux alias Mehr Mahar (accr--rsed No.14 in the reference), in CPD 252Ll16 for petitioner

No.13 Rajesh Kumar (accusecl No'15 in thb referenbe)' in CPD 23s6|2oL6fofpetiti,oner14trshfaqtreAhmed(accusedNo'16irr t lo CPD 3464 1izAL6 for petitioner No'15 Sooinar Khau (accused No.i17 in the reference) a1l of whom at []re of time of the offense were contractors suibmitted that the malafides ata-, ABwasevidentfromthetactthatthemenrbersoftheTeclrnica] visil who made.tl-re RePort did not associate them in the site fur:ther submitted that the r'vork had been compieted as per vl

L77

lvork order'; that lhey were inuocent ot{ anr lvrol'Ig doing and that the Report was defective in that it dicl not contain maps and charts and photo's etc atrd that there was no evidence against them

.Y

75.All of the aforesaid accusecl irave been given specilic roles in the refereirce lvnLich are set out at Paragraphs 15, 17, iB, 19 and 20 of the reference respectively which are reproduced as under fpr ease of reference:

"15..The Investigation Report reveals that the accused No.l2/ Jawaid A\med Shnikh Government Contractor / Proprietor of M/s Sahih Haji Atta Mohimarnd &.Co and lvl/s J.S Constmction & Co' in connivalce with accused No.1,3 to 5 & 7 is'involved in misuse of authority and mis-appropriation. Accused No.12 intentiona-lly did not apply the l "t coat of bitr-tmen as required for the constrnction 'of road and drarvn illegally, unlawfully amount of 1'l carpet for rvhich l-re ll,as not entitled . as Lre faitecl to lay the required thickness of road. Accusecl No.12 / Jar'vaid .Ahmed Shaikh in conriivance rvith accused No-1,3 to 5 &' 7 is involvecl in misapi:ropriation and causeci loss to tire ^ natiouaf exchequer & gains occurred to tl're tune ol Rs.29,26,O941-. His liability & gains is of Rs.14- 63,O47 l-',.

Technical Report Observations/Remarks P-L69 and L75 (two schemcs):

"(First scheme).F. 169. Random pits were tal<en where itr the tl-rickness of Sub-Base and Base cotirse founci accordingly as per MB in'hile average thickrress of car-1:et found'nearly 1" vrhile Ist coat traces remained unobserned," (bold added)

Quantity as per site left trlanh llemarks: Amotnt to be recoverecl I?s. 4l32BB/=.

(i)i'(Seconcl schen-re) P. 175. Rar-rdom pits were tal<en -where in the thicl<ness of Sub-Base and Base cottrse founcl accordingly as per MB while avcrage thickncss

b?o

Ylil: Ist coat traces of earfet founrl nearl]' 1:'added) ,-n<1F, i.'jiii!{l r!:rti

r"mairt"d urrobserved''t (bold QuantitY as Per site left blanh' is lesser Remarks: Surface area of 1ut coat iterns e:<its :rt than carpet arca. 5O% is trained' as the item site, ptiti.tty recovered due to poor an!- -l9rv Rs' 2'143628'/=' 1 Amoul.rt to be recovered "p""ifi.ution.

(bold aclded)

*17. The Irrvestigation Repor-t reveals lhat the accused is a No. i4 / Ameer Bux alias |Ieer Mahar GovernmerrtContractotlProprietorof'M/sAl-A-rnir i"i;+;is""-i.i*rrti"-rce with accused No'1' 4 F 1 i" misappropriation.

;;;;ila * misr-rse of authority arrdapply not 1"t coat of ;;";";.i No. t+ intentionally dicl -the biturneir as requireci for tlhe construction'of roacl for an5i

d.rawn il1egalIy, unlau'fu1ly a:rrount -of 1" 'carpet lay tl]:

r,vhich he was rrot entiilLd as he failecl !o - .;;;i;"4 thici<ness of road and a-lso bar-ror"'ed the ear'1l-i for berm formation from the ardjacerrt lancl and illegally ,fr"'lead payments' Accusecf fo'14 / Amee'" q"l """irA"Meer alias Mahar in conuil'ance with accused No' I '4 &' 7 invoh,ecl in rtisappropriation and caused loss to the National Exchequei-

g gains occurreci to the tune o[ n". i i,og,o60/-. FIis tiauitity ancl garns is of Rs'5'

54,83O I -".

Technical R.eport Oirservations/$emarks f' 161: "Ranclom pits rvere taken whcre in the thicl<ness of SublBase and Base course found accordingly as per MB while average thickness of carpet found nearly 1" while ist coat traces remained unobserved." (l-rold aclded)

QuantitY as Per site left blanh' Remarks: Diff of rate = lead rate - ord: rate= T'I2g.gS 3650.23 = 49flJ2. "hO cft' Due !o unavailability of approved ' charts in tire record '

l ' pold added)

Amounl- to bL recoviiecl Rs.9977Sg o\t r.-t,i\ iP",li "18. The lnvestigation Report revea-ls that the a'ccr-rsed rtll No.15 / Rajesh krrro*t is'a Go.vernment Contractor / 'Eirgineerireg Work's in Proprietor of M/s Roorrrasa connivance with accused No.1, 4 & 7 is'involved in 'V-t

E

b?o

)l

of carpet founcl nea":rly 1-" wlrill Ist coat traces remained unosserved''t(bojd added)

QuantitY as Per site left blanh' is lcsser Remarks: Surface area of L't coat items e"cits at tt an carpet area. 5O7o is trained' as the item site, partially recovered due to poor "19^l:* Rs' 2'143628't=' specification. Amount to be recovered (bold added)

*17. The lrrvestigation Report levgfs that the accusecl No.14 / Ameer Bux alias fleer ofMahar is a Governmeut Contractor / Proprietor M/s Ai-t"it ;;;*p;t;;-ir,--i.ol"t'ce with accused N,'1' 4 & 7 is invoived in misuse of authorit'y arrd misappropriatio4' l"t coat of ;.";";e No.r+ intentionally dicl nor appiy the- Ui,l-lrr." as requireci for tire construction of roacl ancl d.rawn illega1ly, unlau'fully anount of i " "carpet t1]: fo'' whicir he was rrot entitled as he faiiccl !o .lay ..qrir"a thickness of road and a-lso $;u1-er'\'ed tfie earil-i for berm formation fi'om tl-le acr.jace'rat Jancl and illegall-y -;;;;h; i".a p"ytt.nts. Accusecl No 14 / Arnee'. q"l -Meer a-lias Mahar in connivance rvith accnsed No'1'4 &' i- ir*olr,.a in ,risappropriatio, and caused loss to the National Exchequei-'g gains occurrecl to the tune of Its.1J ,09,660/-. FIis tiiUility arrcl gains is of Rs'5'

Technical.Report Obserirations/Sernarhs f' 161: "Ranciom pits rvere tal<en whcre in thg thicl<ness o{' Sub-Base zurd Base course founcl accordingiy as per MB while average thickness of ca.rpet found nearly 1-" while ist ciat traces remained unohserued"' (bold aclded)

Quantity as Per site left blanh" aate - ord: rate= Remarhs: Diff of rate :-l:1d o/"O 7723.95 * 3650.23 = 4A67'72 cft' Due to unavailability of 'approved charts in the rccord' Amounl to be recoveiecl Rs.9977581:

- ' (bold added)

tt "18. The Investigation Report revea-ls tirert t1-re etccr-rsed Crj No.15 / Rajesh Krr**r is a Government Contractor / -ot'M/s Proprietor Roorrrasa Eirgineerii-rg Work's in conirivance '"vith accused No.l, 4 '3t 7 js'invclved in t\ol

G3l

-td

misuse of autirority alC inisappropriatiori' Accused No' l5 iretentionally urnla'*{u11y, illegally dra'"vn paymeuts for ear-th work ancl it is 'compaction while according to PPWQ i'eport no such. earLh work ald compaction lvere executed-at site. Accusecl No. i5 / Rajesh .l{umar in connivance with accusecl lrlo.l,'4 & 7 is involved in misapfropriation ald caused loss to the National Exche(uer & gai.ns occurred to the tune o[ Rs.5,63,913/-. His liability & gains is of Rs'2, 81,957 i-' Technical Report obserrrations/Remarks P' L65: "Random pits were taken where in tire thicl<neSs of Sub-Base *r.1 8a". course found accordingly as per MB while average thickness of carpet more than L'' (bold added)

Quantity as per site left blank.

Remarks: The berrns of the road found with desert sand. Amount to be recovered Rs.49 L247 l= "irg, Tile Investigation Report revea-ls tirat the accused No.16 / Ishfaque Ahmed Awan is a Governrnent Contractor / Proprietor of Ms/ Mohammad Ramzan 7 Co. in connivance rvith accused IrIo-1, 4 & B is involved in misuse of authority ancl misappropriation. Accused No.16 intentionally didn't apply the 1't coat of bitumen as required for the construction oi' road and drawn illega-11y, unlavrfuliy arnouut of 1" carpet for rvhich he \,vas not entitlecl as he fajled to lay the required thicl<ness of road ancl a-lso balrowed the earth for bernt formation from the adjacent land ald illega-lly saving tl-re lead payments. Accused No. i6 / Ishfaque Ahmed Awan in connivance u,ith accused No.l,4 & B involved in misappropriation ald caused ioss to the Nationa1 Exchequer & gains occurred to the tune of Rs.12,90,3761-.Hrs liability & gains is of Rs.6,45,188/- Technical Rgport Observations/Rernarhs F' 153: "Raldom pits were tal<en where in the thickuess of Sub- Base and Base course found according to measured in MB while average thickness of carpet found L" while J."t coat traces remained unobserved." (bold adcied) Quanl:ity as ller site 39ii186 cft.

v

b97

x Remarks: Darnages portion' Qly = 4'75+9'75\12 3.25 *'i;oo length = iz+{z cft' Amottnt to be recovered Rs. I 152 137 I =.

"2O. Trre Invesl-igation Report revea]s that the accused N..ii^;;;;;:ith"" is a Governme't contractor / Y l.opri"to. of M/s Soomar Khan Mahal in connivauce with accused I'{o.1,3 & 5 is involved in misuse 17 -ur-ta of ;il";iry *i"tpptoi"iation' Accused No' as bitumell i"i""tioirrfly did. ,,ot aipl1' the 1't-coat of a:rd ,"q"it"a for the consiruction ofcarpet road drawn ifr;^gJrv, unlaw'fully amounL of 1"t i:: *.5 tiot entitled as he fa-iled to lay theY:c'i.1.? requlreLl Iflran in ifri"f.rr..t of road. Accusecl No' 17 / 5Soomar ;;;j;;;..-*i,r,'accused No'r,3 & toisthe involved in National *i"r.ppropriation alcl paused ]o1s ' to the' tune of Exchequer & gajns occurred 18'4251- n". ia,so-,s91/-. Hi; iiability & gains is of Rs'B' Technical Report Observations/Remarks P' 173: "Random pits were talien r'vhere in tl-re lhickness of St-tb- Baseand'BaseCoursefourrdaccordirrglyasperMB ;;;i" *t-"""g" thiekness of carpet formd nearly 1" while L't cJat traces remained. unobserved'" (bolcl adcle d)

Quantity as Per site left blank' Remarhs: 5O% is trained as the item exists al: site' f"rai"ffy recovered ' d'ue to poor and low ipecification. Amount to be recovered Rs' 1a23235/='

76.We do not.agree that tlle non association of the petitioners 11 to 15 with the inspection of the site at the time r'vhen the Report lvas made l:epresents any inatafide on the palt of NAB' There r'vas

with the no requiretnent ou the part of the NAB to associate them and all ' inspections that were made. Tireir statements were recorcled

'I1

hepetitionershadafullopportunitytopresenttireir'case.before e NAB before tire reference was filed vr/

1.o55

77.Wc do no.t agrec r'vitl-r the cLrnienijoll that llrc Report ts defe cti.r,e or is j.r-i a]-rv \ rav llar'r'ed' \Ve Jrnct lt ' as rnetttiotrecl carlier ' r-l.re clesc,pticn of to be concise a,d bccureite ar-icr 1air se1-r-iirg o.L -l

116 r^,,orlis carried out r'vit1'r associa'ted rcmarrlcs L'et:lrtav has cven Y tea'r- for usage over titric been gi'ren [or any requrred fair wea: and col-r-lllilecl in tlre In acldrtron to the NAB officers the Report lvas l-:lreSellCColt]reexpertpr.olessionalstrrelltioneciear-lrer.lnl-lrtsorrler (r.r-l-r o r;c' l'rajloes and d'eslgrlatlons a-re set out belo'''r' fot- etlse of

refcrence)rr,irosecredcrrtialslnourr,ier,r.full},etrab]etlrernLott-l.l,llr:

rleaninglul coutributtons at site to assist the colrtl;tlers o{' tire Reporl

1 "Ml. Iflrhircl lluss.ain lihail<h E;<ecr-it'tve flngirLeer', CCLt' Pal< PWD, Sukkur.

N{rImran \Rasool Quresht, Sr-rb Engineer' CC' Pak PWD' Sukliur I Vlr. Ja',,,ed Ahmco' I{a-lhoro, Assistalt Executive Bngt;ler:r' Provir-r ci al I{ighr.r'ay5 Dir'isto t-t Srrl<kur N4r-. I(hachm i-Iussain I(edu'aLr, Sub Engtneer' Provtlt':tal I-L g1-rrva1'5 D ivision, Sul<icur'

Syecl Air Na,seel Sha1i, Sr- b Dr-rgilreer,. Provincral I-ii<l-L"v'r1' Divisior-r. Sukkur rvlth other non tr:chtrical st'afi"'

73.Noue of petitr';ners llzrr'/e producecl allly trta'tr-:':a1 Jl I :ng v.,hatsce.;et- to rebul aly of t1-re fincings in t1-re Report and.hi't.',,e o,r1},

.ri macle 'Dald. tlnsubstantiatecl allegaticns that' the rvork was car;-ted r.^

r,ut as per v-vork ordel if thcr-e rvork has been signed ofl l:s

'.),:ornpletccl arlcl r)\'rr:r l)tlYlrrertts tnecle \\re aj-e of the vielv t1-rat ttrr:' is i, I ., i i! ii _ .

lltt-Ie, it an1r, assisLalce lo the pelltioners as such ., rlrl /./ot signrng, oft'"'"'"'s;

t_-'

.r,1orle m:-rii-rIv ltv tire officie-1 cc aCcused who'.il(l pet-ittutler-s v,'cfr'lil

L'7\

,tl

/-'- lllter coilusion arli coiriLiYance rvith or- Iorrn a' pzu t of scPal'aLe lirrl<ed inquiries

Tg.AllthepeLttrolrers].rar,cac]nritteddclrrgtlrert,orl<sql|116]1|l21ve bcen founcl ciefectrr,'e or 1acl<iilg in thc Report at P'i69' 175' i61

Y

](]5.153atld]T3respectivelyextractsol.rvlrtcl-tllar,ebcetrSetO,Lll tl ce below th er.r role tnetltronecl alcove for ease tr1 refere S0.AssuchSlnce\&Iehavefounclnonralarideolrtlrepart.oitl-re NAB and prllrra facie t'irele 1s sufficier-rt materlal to connect-

charge''j petitioners l1 to 15 to the offense for-'*hich the'v have ]lden tlre interirn pre arrest bail granterl to petitioners 1l' 12' 13' 1'1 anrl t 15 a-rd ts hereb1"recalled.

Sl,Belorcpartlngllrtlrthisorderwe."votridliket"omalret]i.. lb11owrng ef 56lrr2tions

3',1 . Prror to partitron cities ir-r the interior o1'Sind such as Suki<rtt' ;.rrci Siril<arp Llr \\rei-e well nerintanecl ald evel] lt !'\/as ol1ce allegccll"' sajd that Shikarpur $.as the Paris of Srnd. Today these cities h:ryc' becn recluce d to .r pitrful state vr,tth 1)oor sewagg, salrtatiou, Llrtlkr-'t-t r-oacls, lnaciecluate pubLrc arrrenities alci sO on atnd So forth iviriCi.l ltas rrracle t1-re lives of the peoitle iivtng rn such clties; mtseral.tl,: 'fl,.ese cities ltave itceil proi'tc1ed lunds [oi- tJ-tcir-urplil atlrl n-ra;niel-iat-Lce but sadlr'this is a ciaSstc, alld we susf,rect just oirc of grany, cases \\rhel'e prima facie i:ubllc fuirds havc beer' slpholled olf

I

r '!

,l i r,, ) i)r, cOutt-aCtot-5 ltt cOllusrol't -,r'ith G9','e rllment olilcraris u'itl'r tlt'" I ii re..rtL that the regurrecl ur,)rli ls er':l-ier-not done zrt ali or-cleltbe.:tt-ei.''

done in a SUb Stanilard Lrlollliel- so tlrat r:he governme;rt crfitciais

. ,.,,; -l .\ a-

ancl contractors in coilusion alcl cotlnivalce v'ritheach other'.could

of ar-rthority/failure to rnalce illegal gotten gaiirs through lhe misuse their own city and the

exercise authorrity without ca:-ing lqss about their own family inhabitants of their city; wl-ro probably also include members, u,ho are reft to suffer- on accourlt of their misdeeds' which in effect are Persons wlto commit such ol-fences like these dealt with firraly in also crimes against the public/society must be practice can be accordance witir the 1aw so that this prevailing clirninated ancl such cities, throrlgh ' proper utiliz:rtion o1 cleildrell cal.} gl.ow Llp d.evelopment funds, carr be a place l.vlrere our lt1 a healthy erivironment rvitil all the llecessary and adequate facilities and ameniti.es which rnakg tire right to.iife meaningful

83.Not withstaflding the above observation we are deeply to the disturbed by the fact that once again the total,amount of loss t cf each petitioner alpear.s Rrlblic exchequer arrd individual liability to be relatively minor in terms of the NAB's mandate to deal with We mega corruption cases ancl we will deal with this aspect below' an-e however not entirely convinced that the petitioners should have

their- pre arrest bail recalled and be jailecl when such relativell' minor" arnounts are involved in NAB cases bearing in mind that NABIs primary mandate is to pursue mega corruption cases' However the law o! pre arrest bail as iaid down in the above cited

preme Court case of Rana Mohamured Arstrrad' V Muhammed rque (PLD 2OO9 SC 427) which sets out the legal requirements ich would entitle an accrtsed. for the grzurt of pre arrest bail ;---. mal<e it clear- tirat (a) gra'+t of bail before arrest is an Lr/

rr * 't

erftraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations (b) those sitr-ratirrns rn'ould be to protect innocent persons against.victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motives (c) pre-arrest bail is not to be usecl as a substitute or as an alternative for post-arrest bail (d) bail before arrest can not be granted unless the person seeking it satisfies the conditions specified in suhsection (2) of section 4.97 of Code of criminal Procedure (e) not just this but in addition thereto, he must'also show that his arrest was being sought for ulter[or motive, 'irreparable particularly on the part of the police; to causc i-iumiliatior-t to him and to disagree a1d dishonor him and that nII of the above grouirds need. to have hecn made out. Th.us, since we irave found that none of these grounds have been made out by al.r)r of the petitiofiers in the above case, especially in terms of { ma-lafide, ar-rcl ,.ve are constitutionally bciund to follorv the judgrnents,iorders and principals of law as laid down by tire Hon'ble Supreme Court thus in cases sucir'as these tlre pre aJ-rest bail as a matter of law shoulci be rejectecl. .

84.We further express ar-e deep dissatisfaction and grave cotlcerll tl-iat cases of this nature involving relatively petty amounts continue to be filed as. references by the NAB. By Amjad ussain's case (Supra) NAB's SOP on pecunia-r-v jurisdiction was t' e a judicial order. As per ttre learned Prosecutor General o[ "il that SOP came into effect on 0i-01-2016 (and according to him the SOP was being strictly complied urith after tiris date) Amjad Hussain's' case (Sup:-a) r,',,as decided on 2'7-04-2015. Tire

\4I

ryI 4rl

:_.. -,'-:r

SOP/judiciai order in effect limited NAB to not fili.ng references trelorv RS l0O iVi 1tO cr:ore) excepti, ercception circumstances as set out in the soP/Judicial orcler. Yet we find that the instant relerence 07l2o16 has been filed before the Accountability court sukkur on 28-10-2016 (10 months after the date when the SoP becarrre effective' and 6 mouths after the ain3aa Hussain's case (supra) whereby the soP was convertecl into a judicial order). In the instant reference in total the loss to the nationa-l exchequei wzts apjrl-ox 2.7 crores i.e about 25oh of the amount set out in the soP arid juclicial orcler (divided bebreen approximalely 24 pdrsons) with individual iiability in some cases being as lorn, as 2 lacs 77,OOO, I lac 11,000, 4la,cs'52,000, B lacs 99,000, S.{acs 54,000,2lacs B1,0OO, 6 lacs 45,000'etc. It is difficult to see how prima facie such amounts fall within the pecuniq-ry jurisdiction of tlee NAB { when the primaly mandate of NAB as set out in tire Supreme court case of Asfandyar Wali Khan (PLD 2001 SC 607), and later Fligh Court cases of Rauf Bux l{adri (MLD 2003 7771 artd Amjacl. Iiussain (Supra) was heid to be to deal with large scale/nrega cormption cases and was recently re enforced by NAB's own SOP which was rrracle a judicial ord.er in Amjacl llussain's case (Supra).

The Flon'ble Sup.reme Court has even recently obscrved by order dated 24-10-2016 in Suo Moto Case No.17 of 2016 (uirreported) t1-rat the NAO should only be used in cases of mqga scams il ther than petty cases. 'lhe afoietnentioned order in materia-l t observed as under v1

I ,9

. I ..r

"Tlris Court art 02,A9,2016, during hearing of Civil Appeal No.82-K of 2O15, notlced' sbuse of authorltlt bS-tLg--ME---rph!.le to.klno coonlzance of pettq ;"rt;;; i terms of Section 9 of the National a".ot ii"tility Ordinance' 1999 (hereinafter referred 'The Ordinance u'as'primarily to as the Orctrinance).

legislated to counter the cases of mega scandals and initiate proceedings against the accused persons who are fnvolved in scanda.ls of nrega corruption and corrupt practices." (bold, italics and underlining added)

85.It is true that the consicleration of PB may be talcen' ir-rto account buL in ottr view lhis aspect appeal-s to ha-ve beeu

L

misunderstood/misinteq:reted bv the NAB' Yes, we a$iee that PB i

is a relevarrt factor in deciding whether or uot to file a reference but in cur view it is gnly a secondary factor linhed to the larg.e scale corruption element or if the amount involved falls slightly under the RS1OOM pecuniary juriscliction and itt- .<ttul eaent I resort to PB must be in. tltc no-tiono-l. intet'esi;" Onc of the intentions in our view of the NAO ',vas to recovel' ill gotl-eri garns through Voluntary Return or PB but this was in our view relatabie to large sca-le anounts and not Lc proccecl against persons r,vho owed RS10 or 20 lacs with the hope that they would'euter into volrrntary return or PB before trial r,vas futly alluded to in Para 28 and 30 in terms of .PB in the national interest in Rauf Bux l(adri's case (Supra) where ...or"ri." of PB of minor arnouuts of 1O to 20 l.acs is unlikely to be in the latinnal interest. In our View a case ch as the current one shoukJ perhaps iravc-been tralgferrecl'to other in.vestigating agency at the incluiry stafi. In this case lio*"lr** sin.ce tLe ref,ere*cc is at *.n ad.vanced stage .and vl

I

I

4(r

neariilg a decision by the Accourtabiltty Coirrt ' we arc not .'^ ---!*r.

inclined to interfere with ,r.r. ^ ...^- ttrre 'i,., of the referenc e before condtrct

the accountau-ility court as it would in our view at this belated stage achieve no usefrrl Purpo)se aithough under the circumstances we find it both troubling and painful to decline prg

arrest bail in NAB cases where such minor d'mounts are involved u,hich pursuit prima facie appears to be contrary' to the primary object of the NAO which is for the NAB to pul'sue mega corruption 86- Hovuever, it is made ciear that if such relatively ririnor matters in terms of value faliing well belon, NAB',s SOP and Judicial order- ou pecuniarl, jurisdiction' as set out in Amjad Hussain's case (Supra) continue to form part of NAB references this Court may well consider striking down the same (or reler the references to t otirer courts as per Para32 of the Rauf Bux Kadri case (Supra)) olr the basis that as indicated above such cases are against the letter, spirit, purpose and intent of the NAO, the above cited judgments including that of the Supreme Court irt Asfandyar Wali l(han case (Supra), this Court in Rauf Bu:r Kadri's case (Srtpra) and the Amjad llussain,case (Supra) and as the Supreme Couri has very recently inclicated above . the fili.ng of such references may arnount to a misuse of authority ancl as such may be struck ,:. own by the coui-t acting in its constitr-rtional jurisdiction to ensure

I 1!

I at the iaw is neither misuseci or abused. Even the concept of emiregly attempting to tie up accusecl in relatively lor,v value cases vritir prima facie the marn intention appearing to be to squeeze a- rLl

I

voluntaty return 0r PB gut of tirem with tiie threat of trial hanging over their head otherwisc may, depending on the particrrlar facts and circumstaflces of the case, in future even render such cognizance as potentially rnalafide a:rcl thus bring the institution into disrepute. Even otherrvise it is the duty of tire court to do complete justice in its constitutiona-l cliscretionary jurisdiction whictr may potentially zrllow it in such cases to corlsider pl'essll1g into service the principles laid dorvn in Shamraiz Khan V State (2000 scMR 157) (rather tharr keeping pqrsons locked up in jail where relatively minor amounts are involvecl in NnS 'cases) as was recently clone :by a Divisiona-l Bench of this Court in CPD 5122l2016 Athar'Ali Abbasi v State (unrepo'tted) dated 24-01- 2017 (althor-rgir that case concerned post arrest bail) since after all the i:eople expect justice and fair plav from both the piosecuting .f autirority in terurs of corrrplying with Lheir pri'mary mandate as set out under ttre law and the courts especia-lly when a llersons liber(v is at sta-ke. Indeed, as was helci in the receut Supreme Court'case of Ziagh.am Ashraf V State (2016 SCMR 18) r,vhen considering the issue of granting or refusing an accused bail'such mdtters must not be taken lightly but rather cautiously as a person's liberty is at sta-l<e.

1-) 87. {n view of the above the Chairman NAB is directed to {c

onsider the observations recently made in the case of CI'D

I

o.274112016 Ra-iid Ali Shah rJ Chairrnan NAB (un reportecl] ,sclated OB-O3-2O17 wirich rvas copied to the Ci-rarr:nan NAB and v/

< I -a

4B

r vuhich at ilara 15 in part ald 16 sl-ated as under and for ease ol rei'ereuce are set or-rt belorv

"15 . and perhaps the option opeSr in this respect'to the Chair:nan NAB, on the advice of the PGA, is to consid.er tralsferring oue such test case to another court and see what the legal consequences of this may be.........

"16.Even otherwise Para 44 of amjaa Hussain's case (Sr-rpra) is only a direclicn to tire Chajrman NAB to consider transferring those relerences tirat havc alreacly been filed in Accountability Courts 'which fall below tlre threshold of the jr-rdicial order to other relevant courts. It is not a direction to Lransfer such case s , It is tt1> tt-t the Chairrnan NAB to apply his mincJ ahd to decicle rvhether to transfer the reference to another Cor-trt or not subject to it being iegally permissible and an appropriate case to justify a- tralsfer._..

88.We,now hereb5r direct the Chairrrran NAB to file a report to show what: steps he has taken to tr-ansfer such refererrces of

C

relatively,rninor va-lue following the cases of Amjad Hussain (Supra) and Rajid Ali shah v chairman NAB (Supra) bearing in mincl that sub-clause (ix) of the soP/Judiciat order was only to be pressccl into service in exeeptional circumstances and not as a matter oi' r-outine. such report shall be taken up by us in chambers on 2T- o4'zo]-? along i'ith the report to be filed i, ttre R.ajid Ali shah ease (Supra) and the clirection given to DG NAB Sukkur ri,Jrjch o iiows iater rn thjs order on r,vhich further orders rnay bb passed + reolf .

In stating the above \\/e al-e in 11o walr condoning any criminality on the par-t of a,ybody r,vhich must be prosecuted if sufficient evidence exists bul- in our view it is a question of \oi

b9 .. t -a {}r

choosing the appropriate fcrr-urn/jurisriiction for that prosecuttou bearing in minil the primary pul'lrose of the NAO Lo tacl<lc mega cormption cases. For the avoidancc of any further doubt it is clarified that in proceeding with a NAB case under the NAO the primary considera.tion is whethcr the ease is a mega corruption case which value is above the pccuniary jurlscliction of RS LOO iVt *" *ot out in the SoP/Judicial orcler. This as r-rotecl in Amjarl Hussain's case (Supra.) will enable the NAB to best utilile its resources in investigating and prosecuting.such cases rather than 'relatively minor valtre which could being bogged down in cases of

be deait rvith by a more appropriate forum uncler the iaw. ln this regard we have . ei,en noted that NAB is being used as a debt collection agency by the Ministry of water ancl Porver through its various bodies e.g. SEPCO who are sendipg letters to electricily t Cefaulters (individuai consumers in most cas€s) utrder S-5 @) NAC) in tireir own narnes for amounts sometimes a little over one lac rllpees in the guise of willful default which r,ve have alreadv taken notic.e of in another.NAB case before us in [erm.s of 3urisdiction. Dici Parliament r,eally intend for the NAB to l:r: used'as a debt collection agerlcy by other. bodies s,ho ha-ve their owil means of recovert' :,r such petty cases? Was lvilllul default intended to cover cases c.,l' col.rsumers defauiting or, ,lir.o, amounts of their electricity bills?

+ "-' \r/'"loubt it vel much.'l'he Asfandyar Wali Khan case (Supra) - \i

, ,fii:.,[encis to inclicate that r,villfr-,I default'"vas crin:itralizecl as at1 oflerlse: ' r,br-rder the NAO mainly to stop lalge scaie b.rnk ioart clefauit r.i'hicl-r r,vas their oftere.;,,ritlen off at the cost tc the State, tLre ecouomv a,nd t..10

(r/

I

depositors of that instihrtion. \,/trilst performin[ such yide reaching alcl time conSuriring iunctions of ii:' effect -)- clebt ^ rr collection -l l-l-

concerning relat'ively mino-r amounts on behalf of other bodjes ..vhich appear to us to be prirla facie unrelated to corruption we wonder how is it possible for NAB, to fully harness its resources rn

wlricl-r is order to pursue mega corruptron cases worth RS billions its lrrirnary maldate under the NAO'

90.We have also observed whilst sitting on the NAB bench of this Court that in a significant number of pre arrest bail cases the accusecl is on pre arrest bail for over a year- and rrety often the reference is nearfy half way through tt'ltett the case is ripe tor cleciding the question of whether .the pre arrest bail slrould be confirmed or not. In such circumstances is it fair of the Cout't to recali: the accused's pre arrest bail if he has been regularly attencling the Court ar:cl has not caused aly delay ancl is no mole required for ilvestigation? V/ould this amor:nt to trnfairly punishing the accused which is not the purpose behincl denf ing someolle bail? This is a difficult question bearing in mind the law on pre arrest bail as set out above. Such situation cleaLrly sltows that bottr the spirit and purpose of pre arrest baii is being both misused and abused. This is because as is well settled law pre arrest ball is an extiaordinary relief to be granted. only under extra ordinary iqircurnstances and not to be used as a substitute for post \i ,arfBst . .ln bail as mentioned eariier in this orcler. To allor,v the pre ,j ,lig

bajl to corrtinr.re without confirmzLtion for, so Iong is iu our t -'-. ii .

, ..:eit"-iest .,i:,,

view both a failur:e on the part of the counsel lor the accusecl in w

(ra .y at r 5l

iraving the cases expeclitiously heard rather than dragging them orrt in order to. benefit tiierr client bearing in mind that they ar-e also officers of the.Court and have a duty to fairly assist the court in ensuring the good a-nd eflicier,t and effective adrnini-stration of justice, tire prosecuting authorities in not vigorouslv pursiug the hcaring of such cases and eveu to some extent the jtrdiciary in allowing such pre ar-rest bail cases to linnecessarily litt'ger ou r.vithout deciding on their confirmation or otherwise.

91.In our view in NAB cases oncq the reference has been filed the pre arrest baii application should be immediately decided (but not before this time)'. This is becautse by this time any persons who are on pre arrest bail arcl who do not fot-m pa-rt of the reference carl withdraw their pre arrest bail applications. In our view it would be unfair on the accused oI1 pre al-est bail to cietermiue their confirrnation prior to the fi1ing of the reference since (a) if they were dropped at the inquiry or investigation stage ald do not form part of the reference and their pre a-rrest bail hacl been recalled prior to this they,would have unriecessarily spent unjustified time bebind bars and (b) by deciding on coulirrnation prioi to tire. liling of the reference may give the impressiou to the NAB that the Ccurt considers that theie is either insufficient. or sufficient material against the accusert depending on whether tireir pre alrest bail r,vas + ccnfirrrred or not which may influence NAB in determining whether or no1- to file a reference against them as {-he'case may be. When, hourever, a refererace is fir-rally fi.Ied b1'NAB. tire NAB ought already to have fiied ali commenls alcl a.r,cillr-v clocuments before the tliIL

t

Cor:r. t iir support of its case agaiirst the contirmatiori of the pre an-re st bail, if it'intends to oppose the same (as there is sufficient time from the opening of ap inquiry to its potentia-l conversion into a]] investigatior-r and finally potentially fiiing a reference as Per NAB's own SOP's for this purpose) to enabie the pre arrest bail appiications to be hearcl and: decided irnmediately or within a month of filing the reference at the latest unless exceptionaJ circurnstalces exist. In our view, if after this time laqryer's for the petitioners are perceived.by the court to be using delaying tactics in having the pre arrest bail application decided then as.pre arres[ bail is an ex1-ra'orclinary relief the Cor.trt in our view, if it cleerns it appropriate, may 'in its constitutional discretionary jurisdiction (where the acc.used/petitione. -r"i come with clean hanrls) sirnpl-y recall the interim pre arrest bail. Like wise if th.e concerned Court is , unawaJe of the case or is not deciding the same expeditior:sly it would be the obligation of the NAB to bring this to tlre attention of tl:re Court through moving urgent appiications to h.ave the matter hear:d ald decid"a. ffris is because, as held by the Hon'I;lr,:

Supreme Court, pre arrest bail is NOT , to . be usecl as a substitute or qLternative to post arrest bail in any case let alone a NAB case. .

In suinmary.

f

92.llhe interirn pre arrest barl grantecl to a-11 the petitioners is hereby recalled in respect of all the petitioners with immediate effect narnely ,,il

t- |

a a ril r

1 Petitioner No.1 in CP Nc.D-20 BT I 16 GuI [.{asan Shaikh c Petitioner No.2 in CP No.D-2058 2015' Ghulam Shabir Kalvrar.

Petitibner No.3 in CP Nc,D-20 88 / L6, Khadim Hussain Khalwar r 4 Petitioner No.4 CP No.D-2088/ 16, Syed Ali Nasseer Shah Jaferri Petitioner No-5 in CP No'D- 187211'6, Javecl Ali Shaikh

6 Petitioner No.6 jl CP No.D-2317 116, Ghulam Shhtrir Soiangi 7 Petitioner No.7 in CP No.D-2317 l16, Abdul Rab Shaikh o (l Petitioner No.B in CP No,.D-2319116, Wazir Ali 9 Petitioner No.9 in CP No'D-2334/ i6, Abdul ltehman I(atyper 10 Petitioner No.10 in CP No.D-2357/ 16, Syed Naseem Abbas Shah i1 Petitioner No.11 in CP No.D-2374/ 16 Javed Airmed Shaikh 72 Petitioner No.12 in CP No.D-4049/ 16 Ameer Bux alia's ) iVlci.rr Mahar

13.Petitiorier No.I3 in CPNo.D-2521116 Rajesh Kumar l4 Petitioner No.14 in CP IrTo.D-2386 l2016Ishfaque Ahrned

15.Petitioner No. 1.5 irr CP No.D-2464'/2016 Soomar Khan 16 Petitioner No.16 in CP No.D-231812016 Mr. Fair Mohammed.

93.The Accountability court hearing this reference is direr:teti to complete the trial withil 3 months rjt tfre date of this order. A copy + of this ord.er shall immediately be sent to the concerned. Accountability Court for compliance .

c)4. This order ald especi.a-l1y the lasi- 15 pages shall also immediately be sent to Chairma-r-r }JAI3, DCi NlrB (Suk)iur) and DG I l') v,

t l, ,*

q*. I

trtr particular DG NAB (Karachi) for information and comPliance' referencis pendirig before NAB Sul&kur is directed to review the of pecuniary jurisdiction the Accountability court Sukkur in terms the decision in Amjad which have becn filed after 01-01-2O 16 and and investigations Hussairr's cdse (Supra) and on going inquiries before us in in respect of pecuniary jurisd'iction and submit cases whether in inquiry charnbers by 27'04-2017 a report of all has been filed (atong stage, investigartion stdge or where a reference be and the reasdns rvith detaiis of how ad'vanced the reference may involved is less than for filing such references) where the amount RS i0 Crore'

provide

95.As per piira 88 of this order the Chairman NAB shail (which a report by 27-04-2016 to be taken 'p by us in chambers to be filed by the ries rn .ittr the date rvhen a separate report is also court in the i Cia:i-r:ran NAB pursuant to the ord'ers glven by this case of Rajid Ati Shah V Chairman NAB (Supra) and thereafter

furi.ler orders may be passed on such reports / $d/- s t\{l( l-[t: UO HAI.{Mfl) tr& IM K I{A\ frG1i{i.

. J T'DG$ "

D ated: -57/rlrtfif,' sa /- ....,\ !,AIl{O0b A$ IIIN, ti':

iy u,..-

J UDGA ;

tfl.+:' ' /{' :ii -

Itt* Ii Ann o un eedlhv l{ t"r- It.,. -r' $-ni,- ,";," iralla/ -O + i\,t,

SED,'II.IASSAI\I

,l'i T|l{t'onu,, JI]DGts.

sa/ -ol/ \/17 nAslEED Ar[-Gb Soo}Roi

J T'DGD .

CERTTIi IF]) TU Bll mUE COPY

TYI'ED .B

MPl{[;5

oJ A$ srft trt