' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been directed against the judgment dated 20-1-2004 passed by a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the Accountability Court No,3 at Peshawar, under section 10(a) read with section 11 of NAB Ordinance, 1999, was dismissed. The learned trial Judge, having found the petitioner guilty of the above charges, awarded him sentence of 7 years'
R.I. With a fine of Rs,3 crores and also directed forfeiture of certain properties owned by him and his dependent family members. The High Court in appeal filed by the petitioner while maintaining the conviction, awarded to him under section 10(a) read with section 11 of NAB Ordinance, reduced his sentence to four years' R.I. And fine to rupees 10 millions, vide judgment dated 11-7-2002. The petitioner being not satisfied, filed a Criminal Petition bearing No,343 of 2002 against his conviction and sentence before this Court, whereas his family members filed Civil Petition No,425-P of 2002 against the judgment of the High Court by virtue of which the criminal appeal of the petitioner as well as the writ petition filed by his family members, were converted into an appeal and disposed of together vide judgment dated 13-5-2003, in the following manner:-- "Both the above mentioned petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the common judgment dated 11th of July 2002, whereby, a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court maintained petitioner's conviction on the charge under sections 9(v) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, whereas, his sentence under section 10(a) of NAB Ordinance, 1999 was reduced from 7 years' to 4 years' RI, similarly, the amount of fine wad also reduced from Rs,Three crores to Rs,One crore keeping in view the agricultural income derived by him from year 1950 to 2000. It was directed that the amount of fine shall be paid by the convict petitioner within a period of two months to the State, failing which, it shall be set off against the forfeited properties in terms of section 11 of NAB Ordinance, 1999. In addition thereto, petitioner was also disqualified for ten years for holding any public office and the benefit as contemplated by section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code was also extended to the petitioner. As regards writ petition filed by his wife and children, the same too was dismissed on the ground that petitioners therein had failed to justify the properties purchased in their names."
' Petitioner was tried by an Accountability Court at Peshawar on charges under sections 9 and 10 of the Accountability Ordinance for having acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. Petitioner's defence before the trial court was that he had acquired these properties out of the income from the produce of agricultural land owned by him. Assessment of his income was made by the trial court, and thus it came to the conclusion that if defence put forth by petitioner is to be believed, even then, value of the property is in excess to his known sources of income.
' On appeal, the High Court had re-assessed the value of the property, and had come to the conclusion the petitioner was unable to satisfactorily account for the amount of Rs,99,65,894 and the same was held to be disproportionate to his legal sources of income, and therefore, the same was held to be obtained or acquired by him through corruption or corrupt practices, hence, the properties purchased by petitioner and in the name of his wife and children were ordered to be forfeited.
' With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the NAB we have carefully gone through the judgments of both the courts below. Grievance of the petitioner as canvassed before this Court is that the assessm ent of the price of agricultural land was based upon a Notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner assessing the value of the property. It is stated that this Notification was issued for the first time in 1992, therefore, it could not furnish the basis for assessm ent of the entire period from 1985 till date, therefore, the mutation ought to have been resorted to, to which, the presumption of truth could be attached.
' That the assessm ent of agriculture income produce was assessed on the basis of rates prevalent in 1950 and the same rate has been assessed for the produce up to year 1972 and similarly onwards from 1972 the agriculture produce has been calculated.
' Prima facie, we are convinced that there is force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, by converting these petitions into appeal, we allow the same and remit the cases to the Peshawar High Court with direction that its Appellate Bench shall determine the value of the property as well as that of the agriculture produce afresh in accordance with admissible evidence."
2. In post-remand proceedings, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by him and fine to the tune of rupees forty lac under section 10 (a) of the Ordinance. The writ petition filed by his family members was also dismissed with the following observations:-- "We after taking evidence in consideration hold that Mst. Nasim Begum could prove having acquired land measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas at Habibullah Colony Abbottabad after death of her father and that the shares of brothers were surrendered in her favour in the said plot, she also proved having acquired land measuring 11 kanals 11 Marlas in the year 1998 through inheritance from her brother vide mutation No,259 attested on 11-8-1998 Exh.D. W.4/N-1. She is also held to have sold the plot of Habibullah Colony for a sum of Rs,10,58,999 vide mutation Exh.P.W. 23/D-4 and sum of Rs,9,63,000 lying in PLS Account No,3819-0 at National Bank of Pakistan Maneri Branch Swabi is the amount of sale consideration of the said plot, hence the same is given to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs".
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the value of the properties owned by him and his family members as mentioned in the mutations of sale brought on record by the prosecution which were used as an evidence of assets of the petitioner, was much less to that of the value assessed on the basis of valuation table contained in the notification dated 7-12-1992 issued by the Collector under Stamp Act, 1899 but the High Court in preference to the direct evidence in the form of mutations, assessed the value of properties on the basis of valuation table and thereby failed to determine the value of the assets of petitioner in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the properties subject matter of the charge against the petitioner, were being possessed by him either before the issue of valuation table or prior to the joining of service and assessment of the value of these properties on the basis of valuation table which was prepared in the light of average prices of the land in the area without its classification to be introduced for collecting the stamp duty and other taxes on the transactions of sale, was not legal. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of this Court by virtue of which the case was earlier remitted to the High Court for determination of the value of properties in question afresh, has submitted that the valuation table may not have the status of the legal, evidence for ascertaining the correct value of the property and consequently, the price mentioned in the mutations, would be considered the best evidence of the actual value of the properties.
4. The charge against the petitioner was that he purchased certain immovable properties of huge value during the period from 1987 to 1999 in addition to the maintaining of three bank accounts with the balance of Rs,12,00,000 and was also holding vehicles of approximate value of Rs,30,00,000 in his name. The learned trial Judge having made detail scrutiny of the evidence and assessed the value of the moveable and immovable properties owned by the petitioner in his name and in the name of his dependent family members concluded as under:-
1. The accused Ikram Shah is the real owner of all the properties included in the reference and the ostensible owners are Benamidars.
2. The accused Ikram Shah proved that how's owner of ancestral gifted land measuring about 108 Kanal, which generated a genuine and legal agricultural income of Rs, 21,46,000
3. The cost of bungalow No,90/D-1, Hayatabad, one Pajero Jeep and one Toyota Corolla Car Model 1987 stand adjusted in this legal earning.
4. Rupees, about 2 Lakh in this adjustment and Rs,2,58,492 in Bank Accounts at HBt Swabi and ABL Charsadda, totalling Rs,4,58,400 could not be accounted for but this amount has beenignored to cover the margin of human error in calculations and approximate assessments so that injustice is not done to accused.
5. The accused Ikram Shah has failed to satisfactorily account for the properties described in table Nos.2 to 15 above, which are held to be disproportional to the known legal sources of his income and which are presumed to have been acquired by money obtained through corruption and corrupt practices in his own name or in the names of his dependents family members/Benamidars and they are liable to forfeiture to the appropriate govt. Current value of this property for the purpose of section 11 of NABO has been fixed as Rs, 1,52,95,137."
5. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the assets of the petitioner and his dependent family members were disproportionate to his known source, dismissed his appeal with reduction of sentence and the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court.
6. The careful examination of the record would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the value of the landed properties of the petitioner assessed by the High Court on the basis of valuation table issued by the Collector under Stamp Act, 1899, being quite in accordance with the law was not questionable. The object of the issue of valuation table was to fix the minimum value of the property in an area to restrict the suppression of actual price and evasion of the levy of the stamp duty and payment of other taxes on the transaction of sale either through mutation or registered sale deed. The valuation table is prepared are arise on the basis of average price of the properties which is considered minimum price and with the increase of price, may vary from time to time. The price of the property mentioned in the mutation, may be relevant to determine the value of the property but it is not ipso facto an evidence of the actual value, therefore, no sanctity can be attached to such price unless it is otherwise proved through cogent and reliable evidence to be correct value of the property whereas the valuation table having been prepared on the basis of data collected in respect of the prevailing market value of the properties was to be considered more authentic and reliable evidence of actual value of the property as compared to the price mentioned in the mutation. The initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the possession of properties by an accused disproportionate to his known sources of income to prove the charge of corruption and corrupt practices under NAB Ordinance, 1999 and once this burden is satisfactorily discharged, onus is shifted to the accused to prove the contrary and give satisfactory account of holding the properties and in case of his failure, Court may raise the presumption of guilt. The petitioner has neither denied the ownership of the assets in his name and in the name of his family members nor has produced any cogent evidence to substantiate his plea of acquiring the assets through lawful means, therefore, no exception could be taken to the finding of the High Court regarding the value of the assets of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the method of assessment of the value of properties, on the basis of valuation table was against the law or that the price mentioned in the mutation was the actual value of the properties. The assertion that petitioner had sufficient source as his income from agricultural produce, was much more to that of the income calculated, was not supported by any evidence oral or documentary and in absence of any reasonable explanation or cogent and A convincing evidence to suggest that the properties owned by the petitioner were acquired by him from his known sources, the legitimate presumption would be that the assets being held by him, were ill-gotten. The contentions raised in support of this petition certainly relate to appreciation of evidence and the factual controversy having been concluded by the concurrent finding of two Courts cannot be re-opened before this Court. This is settled law that Supreme Court does not lay its hand in a case of concurrent finding based on proper appraisal of evidence unless a serious question of law arises or the findings are found palpably perverse or untenable in law. In the present case, we find that the High Court following the principles of assessing the evidence laid down by this court has drawn a conclusion that petitioner was holding assets disproportionate to his known sources and was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law in coming to the conclusion justifying interference of this court. The scope of a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is confined to the extent of substantial question of law and no such question of law has been raised to maintain this petition .
7. In the light of foregoing discussion, this petition being without any substance is dismissed. Leave is refused.