ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
_____________________________________________________
Order with signature of Judge
Present
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulphoto
C.P No.D-1399 of 2014
Abdul Razzak … .versus….Federation of Pakistan & others
C.P No.D-1400 of 2014
Mohammad Ebrahim…versus…Federation of Pakistan & others
C.P No.D-1401 of 2014
Mohammad Akram....versus….Federation of Pakistan & others
C.P No.D-1402 of 2014
Mohammad Zubair....versus….Federation of Pakistan & others
C.P No.D-1403 of 2014
Erum Bano ...….versus..….Federation of Pakistan & others
C.P No.D-1404 of 2014
Aftab Ahmed Khan ….versus….Federation of Pakistan & others
C.P No.D-1405 of 2014
Shad Qureshi …..versus….Federation of Pakistan & others
Date of hearing 05.12.2014
Ms. Ismat Mehdi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Noor Mohammad Dayo A.D.P.G NAB
-------------------------
Through the aforesaid petitions, all the petitioners have challenged the notices dated 27.09.2012, issued by Deputy Director NAB to the petitioners to avail voluntarily return option in connection with inquiry against the management of Pakistan Steel Mills and others.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the notice issued for voluntarily return is without any lawful authority. The respondents should be directed not to take any coercive action on the basis of the said notices. She further argued that the respondents may be restrained from causing any harassment to the petitioners. The main thrust of the arguments is that under NAO 1999, the NAB officials cannot compel any person to accept voluntarily return option or the plea bargain. In support of her contention, she has relied upon an order passed by the learned division bench of this court on 13.11.2014 in C.P No.D-1398/2014 (Mohammad Bilal V.S Federation of Pakistan and others). In this case also the controversy was almost identical in which the plea bargain option was under challenge. The learned division bench held that the plea bargain option may be accepted by any accused person voluntarily but the NAB cannot force the accused person to enter into plea bargain which would be sheer violation of the fundamental rights.
3. The learned A.D.P.G NAB argued that voluntarily return option was given to the petitioner in the year 2012 and if they do not want to avail the same there shall be no compulsion by the NAB to accept V.R option. He further argued that investigation has already been completed by the NAB. So far as the order of the learned division bench of this court is concerned, he himself pointed out his contention alluded to in the order which reads as under:-
“On the other hand, learned ADPG, NAB, very candidly does not support the impugned notice and submit that in no way petitioner can be compelled to enter into a plea bargain option with the NAB. He assures that in case petitioner himself voluntarily enters into a plea bargain then the same would be considered in light of Section 25 of the Ordinance.”
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we have also considered Section 25 of the NAO 1999 which has two distinct parts. Clause (a) pertains to a voluntarily return when a holder of the public office or any other person prior to the authorization of investigation against him, voluntarily comes forward and offers to return the assets or gains acquired or made by him and the Chairman NAB may accept such offer and after determination of the amount due from such person and its deposit with the NAB, discharge such person from his all liability. While clause (b) relates to plea bargain which comes into play after the authorization of investigation, before or after the commencement of trial or during the pendency of an appeal, if the accused offers to return to the NAB the assets or gains acquired by him or as a consequence of any offence under NAO 1999, the Chairman NAB may in his discretion accept the offer as he may consider necessary and refer the case for the approval of the court, or as the case may be, the appellate court. The plain reading of Section 25 of the NAB Ordinance makes it unequivocally clear that both option are based on the voluntarily acceptance so any V.R or plea bargain option cannot be superimposed by the NAB unless the accused voluntarily accepts or offers V.R or plea bargain.
4. In view of the fact that the time quantified in the notices for availing VR option has already expired in the year 2012 by efflux of time. The learned A.D.P.G NAB also argued that the investigation has already been completed therefore; we are of the considered view that notices issued to the petitioners in the year 2012 for exercising voluntarily return option have no legal effect. However it is clarified that the NAB may proceed in accordance with law. All the petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
Judge
Judge