IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No.D-1369 of 2022

Applicant: The State through Chairman National Accountability, Bureau through Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Soomro, Advocate.

Date of hearing: 31.10.2023

Date of decision: 31.10.2023

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this petition, the petitioner assailed order dated: 10.09.2022, passed by the Administrative Judge, Accountability Courts, Sukkur on an application u/s 12 (c) (iv) of the NAO, 1999, seeking confirmation of order in respect of freezing of property passed by the Chairman, NAB, u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act. Learned Accountability Court after hearing the prosecutor NAB dismissed the same by observing that the same is barred by time and passed directions for initiating an inquiry against the investigation officer who being responsible for approaching the court after crossing the time limit prescribed for.

Learned prosecutor NAB contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of law and the Accountability Court had not considered the fact that a prime land belongs to the Government was fraudulently transferred/allotted to Abdul Haque and again it was transferred to Syed Abrar Shah and 08 others which presently in the possession of Imam Ali Bhurt and his family for which freezing order was passed by the Chairman. He next contended that if the order is not set-aside the Government will suffers from heavy loss.

We have heard learned Special prosecutor NAB and perused the impugned order minutely. The main crux of the Accountability Court for declining the application of NAB was that the NAB was required to approach the court for confirmation of freezing order within 15 days as required by Section 12 (c) (iv) of the NAO, 1999 and after the expiry of said period the application is not maintainable.The section 12 (c) (iv) provides that any order of seizure, freezing, attachment or any prohibitory order mentioned as stated above by the Chairman NAB, shall remain in force for a period not exceeding fifteen days unless confirmed by the Court, where the Reference under the Ordinance shall be sent by the Chairman NAB. Approach to Court after laps of the aforesaid period is totally unjustified. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shagufta Shaheen and others vs. The State through D.G. NAB, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another (2019 SCMR 1106) that once the Chairman NAB passed an order for freezing under section 12 of the Ordinance, it had a lifespan of 15 days, unless confirmed by the court. If the prosecution failed to move the court within 15 days, any subsequent application for confirmation is not maintainable. On being confronted to the fact that as to whether authority issued any notice or initiated any inquiry in view of the direction passed by the Accountability Court in the impugned order learned prosecutor NAB has no answer.

By these findings, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Accountability Court. Resultantly, instant petition is dismissed along with listed applications.

J U D G E