' RUSTUM ALI MALIK, J.- Through this judgment we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 1965/2001 titled Ahmad Riaz Sheikh v. The State as well as Writ Petition No, 15582/2004 titled 'Shabina Riaz v.
N.A.B.' and Writ Petition No,7109/2004 titled Uzma Baig v. The State A
2. The brief facts are that Accountability Reference No, 15/2001 under section 18(g) read with section 24 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 was filed by the 'Acting Chairman', N.A.B.
Against Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused/ appellant in the Accountability Court, Attock on the plea that it had been brought to his notice that the accused aforesaid as holder of public office had indulged in acts of corruption and corrupt practices and had acquired valuable assets i.e, (a) gold ornaments, (b) prize bonds, and (c) share certificates, immovable assets consisting of housesr residential plots, agriculture and cash which he had invested in business concerns and had deposited huge amounts in banks and had also lavishly spent on his living. The Anti- Corruption Establishment was directed ta conduct investigation into the matter and the Investigating Officer submitted the report. In the reference it was stated that the investigation had revealed that the accused had acquired movable and immovable properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income.
3. In the reference it was also stated that the accused, his dependents and benamidars had not been able to account for the properties/assets held by them nor had given any satisfactory explanation for having the aforesaid assets in their names. It was further stated that the accused had acquired those assets through misuse of authority and had gained benefit and favour for himself and for his benamidars. The investigation had further revealed that the accused had bank accounts and immovable properties in foreign countries as well and the investigation in that respect was in progress and in case Of confirmation from Foreign Office by Overseas Wing of the N.A.B. a separate reference in this respect shall be submitted against the accused in due course of time.
4. The 'Referring Authority' stated in the reference that it had gone through the record of the properties and assets as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and from the record it appears that Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused had committed acts of corruption and corrupt practices as defined in section 9 of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999, read with the Schedule of the Offences thereto. It was therefore requested that the accused be tried in accordance with the provisions of the N.A.B. Ordinance.
5. The accused was formally charged by the learned' Judge, Accountability Court No, II, Attock on 22-10-2001 to the effect that he owned and possessed pecuniary resources, movable and immovable properties and the beneficiaries of which were (1) Shabina Riaz, (2) Khalid Nawaz, (3)
Qaisar Adeeb Beg, (4) Zulfiqar Ahmad A Khan, (5) Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, (6) Zarqa Beg, (7) Uzma Beg and (8) Ayesha Beg. The detail of those assets and properties were given in the charges as below
(a) Gold ornaments valuing Rs, One Crore approximately.
(b) Prize bonds worth Rs,5 lacs.
(c) Share certificates of Mian Sugar Mills worth Rs, 1,45,000.
(d) House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore in the names of minor sons having estimated value of Rs,50 lacs.
(e) A residential plot measuring 20K- 15- M in the name of Shabina Riaz in Amirpura adjacent to Green Acre Housing Society, Raiwind Road, Lahore valuing over Rs,40 lacs.
(f) A benami one kanal residential plot in Valencia Housing Society in the name of Mrs. Qaiser Adeeb Beg, sister-in-law, valuing over Rs,10 lacs.
(g) A benami 29 K commercial/ industrial plot in Wasaway Wala, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara in the name of Khalid Nawaz, brother of the accused valuing over Rs,15 lacs.
(h) Agricultural land measuring 75 acres in the name of the accused and his wife, Shabina Riaz and son Hashaam Riaz in Village Qalandarpur, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar valuing over Rs,75 lacs.
' A benami industrial unit, Noor Jehan Dying Mills in the name of his in-laws on industrial plot measuring 14-K-12-M at Ferozepur Road, Lahore valuing over Rs,1.5 crore.
(j) Investment of over Rs,35 lacs in Tough Stone Computer College (Pvt.) Ltd., 28-C, Gulberg, Lahore.
(k) 2 Bank accounts in his name, having transactions of over Rs,47.50 lacs approximately.
(l) 2 Bank accounts in the name of his wife Shabina Riaz having transaction over Rs,50 lacs.
(m) 8 benami accounts in the name of Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, brother-in- law Zarqa Beg and Uzma Beg, daughters of sister-in-law of the accused, both in Pak Rupees and foreign currency having transactions of over 5 lacs US Dollars, over 22,000 Pounds Sterling and over Rs,l crore.
(n) He had also been spending lavishly on luxurious living of his family. He had been spending over Rs,3,50,000 per month since 1994.
' In the charge it was stated that the pecuniary resources and the properties aforesaid were grossly disproportionate to known and declared sources of income of the accused and which he could not reasonably account for and had also not shown the same in his income tax/wealth tax returns and of his other family members.
6. It may be mentioned here that the learned trial Court also summoned the coaccused of the appellant (though they had not been arrayed as accused in the reference) and tried Ahmad Riaz Sheikh appellant in this reference along with his aforesaid co-accused namely (1) Shabina Riaz, (2)
Khalid Nawaz, (3) Qaisar Adeeb Beg, (4) Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, (5) Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, (6) Zhrqa Beg, (7) Uzma Beg, and (8) Ayesha Beg. All the accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was thus asked to produce its evidence.
5. In this case the prosecution examined as many as 51 prosecution witnesses besides producing voluminous record consisting of a large number of documents, a mention of which shall be made in due course.
6. The prosecution witnesses examined in this case were P.W.l Iqbal Khichi, Muharrar Registry, Tehsil Depalpur, P.W.2 Zafar Iqbal, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Haveli Lakha, District Okara, P.W.3 Fiaz Ahmad Patwari, Halqa 3/S.P., Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara, P.W.4 Sayed Samman Abbas, Office Superintendent F.I.A. Headquarters, Islamabad, P.W.5 Muhammad Anwar,. Patwari Halqa Bonga Saleh, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara, P.W.6 Muhammad Bashir, Officer Grade-II, currently posted at United Bank (Ltd.), Al- Flah Branch, Lahore, P.W.7 Muhammad Nadeem Aslam, Manager Banking, Habib Bank Ltd., Panorama Branch, Lahore, P.W.8 Mumtaz Hussain, Manager Cash and Remittances Department, H.B.L., Main Market, Gulberg, Lahore, P.W.9 Muzaffar Khan, Senior Compliance Officer, Citibank, Lahore, P.W.10 Hafiz Muhammad Hussain, Vice-President, H.B.L., Main Market, Gulberg, Lahore, P.W.l 1 Muhammad Kishwar Kiani, Inspector, F.I.A., Headquarters, Islamabad, P.W. 12 Muhammad Abbas Ali, Joint Estate Officer, posted at Estate Office, Government of Pakistan, Lahore, P.W. 13 Shafi Muhammad Senior Clerk, Record-keeper, Directorate of Estate Management, Lahore, P.W. 14 Ghulam Rasool, Assistant Director, L.D.A., Lahore, P.W.15 Imran Aslam, Karat jewellers, G-10 Empire Centre, Gulberg, Lahore, P.W.16 Muhammad Ashraf, Singhar Jewellers, Maclagan Road, The Mall, Lahore, P.W.17 Khadim Hussain, Ruby Jewellers, Maclagan Road, Lahore, P.W.18 Muhammad Ikram, Sonika Jewellers, 39-C-II, Commercial Zone, Liberty Market, Lahore, P.W. 19 Ahmad Ali, Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Circle 16, Zone-B, Lahore, P.W.20 Mazhar Javed, Income Tax Officer, District Pakpattan, P.W.21 Rana Zulfiqar Ali, Deputy Assistant Director, Regional Passport Office, Lahore, P.W.22 Muhammad Tahir, Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Circle 15, Company Zone No,l, Lahore, P.W.23 Muhammad Ahmad Chaudhry, Magistrate 1st Class/A.D.O.R., District Hafizabad, P.W.24 Syed Imran Wasti, Chief Billing Officer, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, 21- Kashmir Road, Lahore, P.W.25 Muhammad Sabir, A.S.I., Police Station N.A.B., Lahore, P.W.26 Allah .
Rakha Anjum, Special Judicial Magistrate, Lahore Cantt., Lahore, P.W.27 Syed Sajid Termizi (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Ravi Town, Lahore, P.W.28 Syed Akbar Ali Zaidi, P.W.29 Mian Muhammad Asif, Proprietor En Em Stores, Liberty Market, Lahore, P.W.30 Iftikhar Ahmad Malik, Bursar, Aitchison College, Lahore, P.W.31 Muhammad Iqbal, Patwari Halqa, Qalandarkot, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar, P.W.32 Iftikhar Ahmad, Tehsildar, Board of Revenue, Lahore, P.W. 33 Muhammad Saleem Patwari, Amirpura, Lahore City, Lahore, P.W.34 Ali Ahmad, P.W.35 Riaz Barkat, Inspector Special Branch, Punjab, Lahore, P.W.36, Muhammad Asif, General Manager, Valencia Housing Society, 99-P, Gulberg- II, /Lahore, P.W.37 Ghulam Rasool, Girdawar, Bakhshan Khan, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, P.W.38, Mudassar Ahmad, Officer Grade-Ill, Bank of Punjab, Main Branch, Egertan Road, Lahore, P.W.39 Rashid Afzal, Officer Grade-II, Bank of Punjab, the Mall, Lahore, P.W. 40 Muhammad Shamoon, Billing Supervisor, Revenue Officer, Garden Town Division, Lahore, P.W.41 Abdul Rauf, Assistant Director Revenue South Water Tank, Shah Jamal, Lahore, P.W.42 Anwar Ali, Director Internal, Audit Revenue, P.T.C.L., Model Tow'll, Lahore, P.W.43 Muhammad Yasin, P.W.44 Ahmad Saeed, Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore at present posted as Excise and Taxation Officer * Zone-4, Lahore, P.W.45 Zulfiqar, Sub-Engineer, Building Department, GOR-Il, Lahore, P.W.46 Syed Jafar Abbas, Secretary Convent of Jesus and Mary-4, Durand Road, Lahore, P.W. 47 Muhammad Murtaza Khan, P.W.48 Rashid Mansoor, President Escort Investment Bank Limited, Escort House, 26- Davis Road, Lahore, P.W.49 Malik Abdul Jabbar, P.W.50 Hafiz Muhammad Abid, S.E.C. Abid Group-76- D-l, Gulberg-II, Lahore And P.W.51 Shahid Nasir Raja, Assistant Director, Anti- Corruption, Lahore.
7. It shall be futile to reproduce the evidence of all the 51 P.Ws. In this judgment. A brief reference to the same can be evidently made. However we may refer to the statement of P.W.51 Shahid Nasir Raja, Assistant Director Anti-Corruption, Lahore who had investigated the case as in his statement he had referred to almost all the prosecution evidence in his statement. He deposed that Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Registry Muharrar had produced before him the documents Exh.P.W. 1/1 to Exh.P.W.1/8 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.A. Zafar Iqbal P.W. Had produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.2/1 to Exh.P.W. 2/8 which were taken into possession by him vide memo.
Exh.P.B. Fiaz Ahmad Patwari/P.W. Had produced before him on 10-2-2001 the documents Exh.P.W.3/1 to Exh.P.W.3/5 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.C. On 5-5-2001, Syed Samman Abbas/P.W. Has produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.4/1 to Exh.P.W./5/15 which were secured by him vide Exh.P.D. On 10-2-2001, Muhammad Anwar Patwari/P.W, appeared before him and produced the documents Exh/P.W.5/1 to Exh.P.W.5/4 which were secured by him vide memo. Exh.P.E. Muhammad Bashir Patwari had produced the documents Exh.P.W. 6/1 to Exh.P.W. 6/3 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.F. Muhammad Nadim Aslam/P.W. Had produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.7/1 to Exh.P.W./7/23 which had taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.G. On 15-4-2001, Mumtaz Hussain/P.W. Had produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.8/1 to P.W.8/78 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.H.
Muzaffar Khan/P.W. Had appeared before him on 25-4-2001 and had produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.9/1 to Exh.P.W.9/41 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.J.
The statement of Hafiz Muhammad Hussain/P.W. Was recorded by Allah Rakha Anjum, Special Judicial Magistrate (P.W.26) before whom he had identified the aforesaid Hafiz Muhammad Hussain. He presented the application Exh.P.W. 51/2 before the learned Magistrate to get attested copy of aforesaid statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the copies Exh.P.W.26/8 to Exh.P.W.26/10, were supplied to him. He took other formal steps in connection with the investigation of the. Case and narrated as to how different documents were produced before him by different P.Ws.
' The I.O/P.W.51 further deposed that on 12-3-2001, he along with Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry, MIC/P.W. Searched the house of Mst. Asmat Qadri wife of Muhammad Aslam Baig, 54-Baddar Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore and took into possession articles and documents Exh.P.W.23/1 to Exh.P.W. 23/118 and Exh.P. 1 to Exh.P.98 which were secured by him vide memo. Exh.P.R. The search was conducted under the supervision of the aforesaid Magistrate. On 23-4-2001, he took into possession the documents Exh.P.W.24/1 to Exh.P.W.24 vide memo. Exh.P.S.Ll. The I.O./P.W.51 further stated that on 20-3-2001, Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused who was in police custody made a disclosure that he can lead to the jewellery and prize bonds owned by him and as a result of which he led the police 4 party to his house and got recovered prize bonds Exh.P.W.25/1 to Exh.P.W.25/7 and jewellery Exh.P. 121 to Exh.P. 140 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.T. On 14-3-2001, he submitted the application Exh.P.W.27/1 before the Accountability Court for the assistance of search warrant which was marked by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Model Town/Illaqa Magistrate and as a result of those orders Mr. Sajjad Trimzi, MIC/P.W. And Muhammad Akram/P.W. Conducted search of the house of the accused and took into possession articles Exh.P.W. 27/3 to Exh.P.W.27/39 vide memo. Exh.P.U. Iftikhar P.W. Produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.30/1 to Exh.P.W.30/3 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.W.V.
Muhammad Iqbal/ P.W. Produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.31 to Exh.P.W.31/15 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.X. Muhammad Saleem Patwari/ P.W. Produced before him the documents Exh. P.W. 32/1 to Exh. P.W. 33/9, Muhammad Yousaf/P.W. Produced the documents Exh. P.W. 36/1 to Exh.P.W.36/4, Mudassar Ahmad/P.W. Produced the documents Exh.P.W.38/1 to Exh.P.W.38/8, Rashid Afzal/P.W. Produced before him the Bank Statements Exh.P.W.39/1, Muhammad Hamaad Ullah Khan/P.W. Produced the documents Exh.P.W.40/1 to Exh.P.W.40/4, Abdul Rauf/P.W. Produced before him the documents, Exh. P.W. 41/1 to Exh.P.W.41/9, Anwar Ali/P.W. Produced before him the documents Exh.P.W.42/1 to Exh.P.W.42/4. All of these documents were taken into possession by him. Similarly this witness made mention of other documents or copies thereof which were produced before him by different P.Ws. And were taken into possession by him through various recovery memos. On 14-2-2001, Mst. Shabina Riaz accused produced before him Passports Exh.P.l41 to Exh.P.146 which were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.W.
12. P.W.51 further deposed that the accused was from a poor family and his father Allah Bakhsh was an employee of Mr. Aslam Hayat, Director General, F.I.A. As a 'Munshi' to look after his property and agricultural land. The aforesaid Director- General, F.I.A, got the accused employed as Sub- Inspector in F.I.A. In the year 1977. He had recorded the statements of all the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C., except of the Magistrates. After finding sufficient material on record he submitted report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Before the N.A.B.
13. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances. When asked as to why this reference against him and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against him (Question No, 190), Ahmad, Riaz Sheikh accused/appellant replied as under :-- "No independent witness has been produced. P.Ws. Are pressurized prompted and interested.
' An inquiry against the undersigned was initiated as per orders of the then Chairman Ehtesab Bureau on a complaint dated August, 1997 of one Muhammad Muzaffar and conducted by. F.I.A.
The conclusion/ findings of the said inquiry are Exh.DAR/16 (11 pages), one of the findings was as under: ~ "The specific allegation levelled on being inquired into have been found false, malicious and baseless according to the findings of F.I. A's report."
"The complainant had a strong motive in making this baseless complaint to avenge himself upon an officer (the undersigned) whom he considers responsible for the ruin of his business on account of registration of inquiries and cases against him I also produce Exh.DAR/19 (9 pages) in this respect.
' It may be mentioned that as many as 20 cases/inquiries were registered by the undersigned (excepting two F.I.R. No, 127/97 and inquiry No, 130/97) during the years 1995 and 1996 against the complainant Mr. Muhammad Muzaffar. Nevertheless, Mr. Muhammad Muzaffar submitted an affidavit dated 17th May, 1999. Stating that the application given by him against the undersigned was due to misunderstanding and that he could not submit any proof against the undersigned and requested that the complaints submitted by him be filed. The case was therefore, closed by F.I.A. And Interior Division. The above inquiry was, however, not closed by Ehtesab Bureau for the reason that the undersigned had inquired into the cases relating to foreign currency accounts of Mian Nawaz Sharif and family during the year 1995, as a result of which F.I.Rs, Nos. 12 and 13 of 1995 were registered at Police Station U., F.I.A., Headquarters and Mian Muhammad Sharif was arrested.
The said inquiry was conducted on the orders of the then Government and the undersigned had no malice against Mian Nawaz Sharif or his family, but, unfortunately, I suffered a lot during the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 and was not given proper posting in F.I.A.
' During last region I was constantly harassed due to the reason mentioned above. Most of the period I remained without any official assignment as O.S.D. Repeated inquiries were conducted, with no results. Undersigned could not find any ways to avoid constant mental torture, so approached High Court vide writ number 565/97, which is Exh.D.A.R./18 94 pages). The Lahore High Court examined the inquiry report conducted, under the supervision of Maj. Laeeque Ahmad Khan, the then Director F.I.A., Rawalpindi Zone.
' The High Court accepted my version and exonerated me from all of the charges and passed order as under:- "The learned Deputy Attorney General says that he has received a copy of the report submitted by F.I.A. H.Qrs., Islamabad to this Court which shows that the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges against him. A perusal of the inquiry report also bears out this contention of the petitioner that he has expressed an apprehension that the. Proceedings may again be initiated against the petitioner. In such an eventuality the petitioner may approach this Court again, if so advised." ^ ' After the termination of last Government my rival colleagues played a vital role against me and got signatures of various persons on blank papers and submitted false applications against me. So again this inquiry of assets was started by R.A.B. Authority, although Lahore High Court issued order on my Writ Petition No,565 of 1997, Exh.D.A.R. /18. It is interesting to mention that conduct of such rival colleagues has been brought before this honourable Court by P.W.34 and P.W.35. One of my rival colleagues constructed five bungalows (as evident from statements of P.W.34 and P.W.35) but still he is working in R.A.B. Lahore. Similarly one of my rival colleagues is in charge of F.I.A. In R.A.B., Lahore. This gentleman is maintaining a palace like house in green acre constructed on 20 Kanals land, also owner "of 500 Kanals in Amir Pur, District Lahore. I was made subject to malicious prosecution. " .
14. In reply to the question whether he wanted to say anything else (Question No, 191); Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused replied as under "I was falsely implicated in this Reference by a powerful lobby. During my arrest attitude like "enemy" was adopted against me. No defence version was brought on record by the corrupt Investigating Officer, as he was playing in the hands of my rival colleagues sitting in R.A.B. Lahore.
' My all family members including my wife, minor children, disabled brother, ailing sister-in-law, her unmarried daughters and aged brother-in-law, were tortured and harassed. Even my wife was detained on 20-3-2001 on false allegations. I am a victim of false prosecution.
' During course of inquiries since last five years and during investigation by N.A.B. During last ten months not a single person made any complaint of corruption against me, despite the pressure, incentives, by the Investigating Officer and N.A.B. Authorities. Not a single instance could be quoted regarding corruption, complaint of corruption, evidence of corruption, misuse of authorities, and about illegal immigration no person came forward against me.
' My service record of 22 years is unblemished. My A.C.Rs, are outstanding. My service dozier is exemplary amongst the F.I.A. Cadre. I got appreciation letters not only by the dignitaries of Pakistan but also from foreign government, which created jealousy. I produce my A.C.Rs, duly attested along with application letters Exh.D.A.R./22 (94 pages)."
15. Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused did not make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. When asked as to whether he will produce any evidence in defence he stated that he had already tendered documents while making his statement (under section 342. Cr.P.C.) and apart from the same he produced the record regarding the purchase of land before joining service as Exh.D.A.R./9 and Income Tax Returns Exh.D.A.R./12 and also the tax documents of his mother Exh.D.A.R./13.
16. Like Ahmad Riaz Sheikh, Mst. Shabina Riaz, Zulfiqar Ahmad. Khan, Mst. Uzma Beg, Qaiser Adeeb, Khalid Nawaz, Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Mst. Ayesha Beg and Mst. Zarqa Beg in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.
17. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held that Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused was guilty of the offence under section 9(a)(v) of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999 and hence convicted and sentenced him under section 10 read with section 9(a)(v) of the N.A.B. Ordinances, 1999 to undergo R. I. For 14 years and a ' fine of Rs, One Crore. It was directed that in case of default in payment of fine, he will undergo further R.I. For three years. It was also directed that the property of Ahmad Riaz Sheikh comprising of 306 kanals in Qalandarpur, Tehsil Minchanabad, District Bhawalnagar, plot in Amirpura in the name of his wife Shabina Riaz and land measuring 4 kanals in Qalandarpur which was allegedly gifted in the name of his wife and which was the result of the alleged corruption and corrupt practices of the accused was forfeited in favour of the State. However, the learned trial Court did not forfeit House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore as it was in the names of the children of the accused aforesaid who had not been heard. Same was also the position with regard to 4 kanals of land in Qalandarpur, Tehsil Minchanabad, District Bhawalnagar which was in the name of son of the accused namely Hashim, Riaz. Vide the same judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the co- accused of the appellant namely (1) Ayesha Beg, (2) Qaiser Adeeb Beg, (3) Iftikhar Ahmad, (4)
Uzma Beg, (5) Zarqa Beg, (6) Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, (7) Khalid Nawaz and (8) Shabina Riaz.
18. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence Ahmad Riaz Sheikh has filed the appeal (Criminal Appeal No,1965/2001). Mst. Shabina Riaz Sheikh, the wife of Ahmad Riaz Sheikh and also his sons and daughters namely Hashim Riaz, Basit Riaz, Shahryar Riaz and Urooj Riaz filed Writ Petition No,15582/04 that the respondents be directed to return the property items and documents mentioned in Annex-A and to them. Similarly Mst. Uzma Beg and Mst. Zarqa Beg, the acquitted accused filed Writ Petition No,7109/2004 praying that a direction be issued to the respondents to hand over to them the articles referred to in the list attached with the writ petition as Annex-A.
19. The learned counsel for the Ahmad Riaz Sheikh appellant has argued that the appellant aforesaid had been formally charged in this case along with eight other co-accused namely Shabina Riaz, Khalid Nawaz, Qaiser Adeeb Baig, Zulfiqar Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad, Zarqa Baig, Uzma Baig and Ayesha Baig and out of the 14 heads of property/valuable attributed to the appellant in the charge framed on 22-10-2001, at least 10 were in the names and claimed by the eight co- accused of the appellant in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. And vide the judgment dated 22-12-2001, the learned trial Court had acquitted the aforesaid co-accused of the appellant, thereby eliminating any shadow of doubt upon the properties which belonged to them and which had been falsely attributed to the appellant. As such the appellant has only to explain the properties which were in his own names or those accepted by him as his properties. In this respect, he has pointed that only Clause (b) of the charge relating to prize bond, Clause (h) relating to 75 acres of land; Clause (k) relating to two banks accounts and Clause (n) relating to lavish spending is to be explained by the accused.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the following properties belonging to the acquitted co-accused are obviously to be excluded from the properties in question attributed to the appellant by the prosecution in this case:- Head of ChargeDetail Ownership
(a) Gold Ornaments valuing Rs.1 crore. Mrs. Riaz (c)Share certificates of Mien Sugar Mills worth Rs.145,000. lac.Mrs. Riaz (d)House No38, Faisal Town, Lahore having estimated value of Rs.50In the name of minor sons transferred by brother, Khalil Nawaz (acquitted)
(e)Plot of land measuring 20-K, 15 merles in Amirpura adjacent to Green Acre Housing Society, Raiwind Road, Lahore valuing over Rs.40 lac:Mrs. Riaz
(f) 1 kanal residential plot in Valencia valuing Rs.10 lac. Qaiser Adeeb (g)29 Kanlas commercial plot in Wasaway Wala, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara valuing Rs15 lac.Khalil Nawaz (i)Industrial unit, Noor Jehan Dying Mills onindustrial plot 14 Kanals, 12 Marlas Muhammad at Ferozepur Road, Lahore valuing 1.5 crore.In the name of the in-laws of Mrs. Riaz (j)Investment of over Rs.35 lac in Touchstone Computer College (Pvt.) Ltd., 28-Gulberg, Lahore.Uzma Baig (l)2 Bank Accounts having transactions of over Rs.50 lac approximately.Mrs. Riaz (m)8 Bank accounts having transaction of over 5 lac U.S. Dollars, over22,000 pounds sterling and over Rs.1 crore.Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan, Zarqa Baig, Uzma Baig.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as mentioned by him, the appellant has only to explain the allegations embodied in Clauses (b), (h), and (n) of the charge. In this respect he has submitted that Clause (b) of the charge relates to the prize bonds of Rs,5,00,000 and the appellant does not disown the ownership or income from the said prize bonds.
22. So far as the Clause (h) of the charge is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this Clause of the charge was framed regarding ownership of 306' kanals of land by the Ahmad Riaz Sheikh accused and 282 kanals of land by his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz and there was further charge regarding the ownership of 45 kanals of land by Mst. Shabina Riaz and 4 kanals of land by Hashaam Riaz son of the accused. According to him, basically 314 kanals of land was purchased by mother of the accused and 288 kanals of land was purchased by Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, but the trial Court held purchase of land by Iftikhar Ahmad Khan as a valid transaction while it declared the purchase of land by mother of accused as 'benami'. In this respect he has argued that the Court itself had assumed the price of land as Rs,75,00,000 although there is not an iota of evidence to determine the price of land aforesaid, as mentioned in the judgment and it was astonishing that while Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Khan was a fair chance, the mother of the accused was not given this right to explain her resources. He has submitted that the mother of the accused was alive and Gift Deed was also in writing, but the prosecution had miserably failed to bring her version on record. He has argued that the actual price of the disputed land aforesaid was Rs,6,25,000 as confirmed by P.W.32 and although this witness was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the prosecutor, yet this aspect of the matter had remained unrebutted. He has argued that in reply to questions Nos. 153, 154 and 155, the accused/appellant had clearly declared that his mother is a resourceful person and a taxpayer and statement of P.W.20 confirms that she was a woman of means and her husband had also left reasonable assets for her and ownership of properties by her husband had been confirmed by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3. P.W.5, P.W.20 and P.W.51. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that verdict of the learned trial Court was contradictory and while not confiscating House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore, the trial Court had explained that it had not heard the minor owner of the house, whereas while confiscating the agricultural land, it had completely ignored that valuable rights of the mother of the accused.
23. So far as Clause (k) of the charge is concerned, he has argued that this charge related to two bank accounts of the accused, one of which was maintained at U.B.L. Al-Falah Branch and it was confirmed by P.W.6 that only salary was deposited in this account and besides salary only a deposit of Rs,5,00,000 was made which was the prize money. The other account was opened at the Punjab Bank where prize money of Rs,1.25 lacs had been deposited, whereas the remaining amount deposited in the said account was denied by the accused. Similarly an amount of Rs,2,94,268 was shown to have been spent in six years through Citi Visa Card and it was explained by the accused that this amount had been spent in a period of six years and was declared by the accused in the tax returns. In this respect he has referred to the reply of the accused in response to question No,15.
As regards Bank of Punjab Account No,1155, he has argued that P.W.39 had appeared before the Court and had stated that some amounts were deposited on 16th June, 2nd July and 7th July and in this respect, from reply to question No,87, it is apparent that at the , relevant time the accused was not present in the country. Moreover no record of the bank deposit slips, 'account opening form' etc. Was produced in the Court. He has argued that P.W.39 who was posted in some other branch and was not author of one page Statement, was hardly a competent person to prove the same.
24. So far as Clause (n) of the charge is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that so far as the charge regarding 'living beyond means' was concerned, it was not an offence before 23-11-2002. However, it was incorporated in the Statute Book vide Ordinance No,XXXIII issued on 23-11-2002, while in this case the trial had concluded in December, 2001. He has argued that P.W.23 Mumtaz Ahmad who had searched the house of 1VIst. Asmat Qadri at 50-Badar Block is an important witness. He has argued that no witness of, search was produced before the Court and, interestingly, P.W.23 Mumtaz Ahmad stated that Asmat Qadri had told him that the articles recovered were kept by Qaiser Baig and the driver of Mst. Shabina Riaz but no statement of Asmat Qadri was recorded and even though Khalid Javed was cited as a witness but even he was not produced. He has argued that some `diaries' had also been recovered from the house but no one stated before the Court that these diaries belonged to the appellant or his wife and no specimen of handwriting of Mst. Shabina Riaz was ever got compared and nobody was produced before the Court in that respect. He has argued that memories allegedly recorded by the accused/appellant in the diary were got compared from the 'Hand-writing Expert' but the Magistrate and the Jail Officer in whose presence the specimen of 'Handwriting' of the accused was obtained was never produced before the Court. He has argued that the foreign travelling expenditure was alleged to be Rs,13,96,000 and in this respect it was not considered that the children's tickets cost only 50% of the total value of tickets and some tickets were sponsored by relatives. He has argued that foreign travelling expenditures had been tabulated from the years 1991 to 2000; while income was tabulated from 1995 to 2000. He has argued that the accused had only stayed, in the house at Lahore upto 1997 when he was transferred to Gilgit, the house was de- hired and so he cannot be held responsible for the utility bills from 1997 to 1999. He has submitted that during the years 1999 to 2000 the utility bills had been paid by the tenant. He has argued that P.W.21 Rana Zulfiqar Ali had prepared the Chart of travelling, although he was himself posted in the Passport Office at the relevant time and he had no concern with immigration duties and could not even identify the immigrations stamps. He has argued that P.W.47 Mumtaz Ahmad was R.I.A. Officer and he had tabulated the fare chart- from P.I.A. Fares table and he- had ignored that other Air Lines were cheaper than P.I.A. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in this case, during the investigation, no case diary was recorded by the I.O. And even the alleged disclosure made by the accused had not been recorded and any indication lending to recovery from 50- Badar Block was not mentioned and which is evident from cross-examination of P.W.51. He has argued that through coercive methods, the I.0,--had obtained some false affidavits along with I.D.
Cards from witnesses, besides recording their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He has also argued that while framing the charge, the Court had recorded the statements of the accused and of the co-accused 'on oath' which is against law; that regarding 'benami' properties all the accused were thoroughly examined by the I.O., but their version was not brought on record; that during the whole of proceedings no one had mentioned that any amount was paid by the accused regarding purchase of property; that merely possession- of property i.e, House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore does not confer the title or ownership of property on the accused; that, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt any of the charges against the accused and that the judgment of the learned trial Court is not based on evidence on record or on sound reasoning and as such the conviction recorded by it as well as the sentence awarded by it to the accused is liable to be set aside.
25. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.A.B. Has argued that Ahmad Riaz Sheikh, appellant hails from Haveli Lakha, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara which is a small town. His father Allah Bakhsh (who later died in the year 1984-85) used to look after the farms and properties of Mian Aslam Hayat Wattoo, Ex-D.G., F.I.A. And belonged to a mediocre family. The appellant joined F.I.A. As a Sub-Inspector in 1977 and thereafter he submitted assets beyond his known sources of income by indulging into corruption and corrupt practices. He established his family i.e, his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz, sons Basit Riaz Shehryar Riaz and Hashaam Riaz and daughter Arooj Riaz. He started living lavishly and spent a huge amount on his foreign trips along with his family and also sent his children to expensive educational institutions and they are getting education abroad.
26. Referring to sub-head (a) of the charge i.e, recovery of gold ornaments valuing Rs, one crore approximately he has argued that this ,Jewellery had been recovered from the house of the appellant on his pointation and in the presence of the witnesses. In this respect he has referred to the statements of P.W.15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 43 and 51 and also to sale receipts, etc Exh.P.W.15/1-15, Exh.P.W.16/1-3, Exh.P.W.17/1-5, Exh. P.W.18/1-46 and Exh.P-121/1-2 to Exh.P.140/1-2. He has argued that the learned trial Court had held the said allegation contained in Clause (a) of the charge as proved. The learned counsel for the N.A.B. Has referred to Clause (b) of the charge relating to prize bonds with Rs,5,00,000 and has submitted that the learned trial Court had accepted the prize bonds to the tune of Rs,2,55,000 (as admitted by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. As property of the accused). In this respect the learned counsel has referred to the documents Exh.P.W.23/1-2 (diary) and Exh.P.W.23/102 (search report) and Exh.P.W.25/1-7 and has argued that the finding of the learned trial Court in that respect is based on sound reasoning and evidence on record and should be upheld.
27. Regarding Clause (d) of the charge which relates to House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore which was in the names of minor sons of the appellant, the learned counsel for the N.A.B. Has argued that the said house was found to be benami and the learned trial Court had held that the same had been acquired by the appellant. In this respect he has referred to the statements of P.W.l 2 and P.W.44 and documents Exh.P.W.12/1-14 and Exh.P.W.44/1. The learned counsel for the N.A.B. While referring to Clause (e) of the charge relating to a plot measuring 20 Kanals and 15 Marlas in the name of Mst. Shabina Riaz, the wife of the appellant, and situated in Amirpura adjacent to Green Acres Housing Scheme, Raiwind Road, Lahore has argued that per Kanal price of this plot i.e, Rs .2,00,000 canhardly be contradicted. In this respect he has referred to the statement of P.W.33.
Referring to Clause (h) of the charge relating to agricultural land measuring 75 acres in the name of the appellant and his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz and son Hashaam Riaz in village Qalandarpur, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar he has argued that the learned trial Court had ascertained that 306 Kanals of land was in fact owned by the appellant and that 8 Kanals of land in the name of his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz and Hashaam Riaz was not actually a gift from Maryam Bibi, the mother of the appellant, as she had no resources. In this respect he has referred to the statement of P.W.31 and the documents Exh.P. W .31/ 1-15 . As regards the bank accounts in the name of the appellant wherein transaction of over Rs,47.50 lakh approximately had taken place the learned counsel for the N.A.B. Has argued that the said accounts in U.B.L., Al-Falah Building Branch, the Mall, Lahore and Bank of Punjab, Mall Road, Lahore show heavy deposits without any plausible explanation. In this respect he has referred to the statements of P.W.6 and P.W.39 and the documentary evidence Exh.P.W.6/1-3 and Exh.P.W.39/1. He has also referred to two accounts in the name of his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz in H.B.L., Opposite High Court Branch, Lahore with A/C No,5328-1 and H.B.L., Panorama Centre, Lahore bearing A/C No,3287-B and also the statements of P.W.7 and P.W.8. In this context he has referred to the documentsP . W .7/1-2 and Exh.P.W.8/18-22. Referring to the alleged benami accounts in the name of Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, brother-in-law of the appellant, Zarqa Beg and Uzma Beg daughter-in-law of the appellant, both in Pak rupees and foreign currency, he has argued that the benami account holders i.e, Uzma Beg, Zarqa Beg and Zulfiqar Ali Khan had no 'resources to open and maintain those accounts. In this respect H.B.L. A/C. No, 39013-7, A/C No,20004-5, A/C No,36949-6 and A/C No,2846 were in the name of Uzma Beg while H.B.L. A/C No,400182 and A/C No,7355-2 were in the name of Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, H.B.L. A/C. No,28459 in the name of Zarqa Beg and H.B.L. A/C. No, PLS 2738 was in the name of Asif Mahmood which were benami as the said persons did not have sufficient sources of income to open and maintain those accounts.
28. While highlighting the luxurious way of life of the appellant and his lavish spending in this respect, he has argued that the monthly household expenditure of the appellant during the years 1994-2001, as incorporated in the diary of Mst. Shabina Riaz was Rs,2,40,81,551. Besides that the appellant had been using Citibank Credit Card and on that account had spent Rs,2,34,268. He has submitted that the appellant had also been using an other Credit Card which was in his and his wife's joint ownership and he had spent money through the said Credit Card as well. In this respect he had referred to the statements of P.Ws.4, 9, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 40,41, 42, 46, 47 and 51. The learned counsel for the N.A.B. Has pointed out that the learned trial Court has also found Clause `e' of the charge against the accused and also that the accused/appellant had himself admitted in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The ownership of 20 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land in Amirpura, adjacent to Green Acres Housing Society, Raiwind Road, Lahore and there is no rebuttal on record in this respect. He has also referred to the video-cassettes produced by the N.A.B. During the course of trial and which throw some light on the way of life of the appellant and indicate that he spent lavishly on himself and his other family members and literally showered money on family functions, such as anniversaries and that the N.A.B. Had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had acquired movable and immovable properties with ill-gotten money and was in possession thereof and the said properties/assets are disproportionate to his known sources of income. He has argued that in view of the evidence on record the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence of corruption and corrupt practices under section 9 read with section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and, therefore his conviction and sentence awarded by the Accountability Court, Attock be maintained and the properties mentioned above be ordered to be confiscated in favour of Government of Pakistan.
29. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides.
30. It has already been mentioned above that in this case the prosecution had produced as many as 51 witnesses and had also produced a large number of documents/record to the charge against the appellant. After hearing the arguments from both sides, we are of the view that as the co-accused of the appellant namely Khalid Nawaz, Qaiser Adeeb Beg, Zulfiqar Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad, Zarqa. Beg, Uzma Beg; Mst. Ayesha Beg (and also Shabina Riaz) had been acquitted by the learned trial Court and as out of 14 heads of properties/valuables attributed to the appellant in the charger framed on 22-10-2001, at least 10 were in the names of and were claimed by the accused of the appellant mentioned above in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C., the properties, of which they were alleged to be benami owners and which they in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had claimed to be the owners, could not be I forfeited, except those which were in the name of wife of the accused because she did not have any independent source of income. We agree with the learned counsel' for the appellant that the properties of which the co-accused of the appellant had been alleged to be the benami owners but after trial had been acquitted by the learned trial Court, could not be forfeited on the ground that actually the same belonged to the appellant. But the case of Mrs. Shabina Riaz is different, because it was the appellant on whom she entirely relied upon. Same was the position of the children of the appellant.
31. Admittedly the appellant Ahmad Riaz Sheikh belonged to Haveli Lakha, a small town in Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. According to the prosecutom story his late father Allah Baksh used to look after the farms and properties of Mian Aslam Hayat Wattoo Ex, Director General FIA According to the prosecution the appellant had joind FIA in the year 1977 as a sub-Inspoector the lavish style of living of the appellant and the way he was spending the money. In the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for the N.A.B. Has pointed out that the appellant had sent his children to F expensive educational institutions and they were also receiving education abroad and that he had spent millions on acquiring property and on his household and other expenditures, including those on the foreign trips.
32. Admittedly gold ornaments valuing Rs, One crore approximately were recovered from the house of the appellant when the raid was conducted on his house G and the Jewellery articles were taken into possession by the 'raiding officer' in the presence of witnesses. In this respect reference has been made to the statements of P.Ws. 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 43 and 51 as well as to the sale receipts Exh. P W .12/1-5, Exh. P. W .16/1-3, Exh.P.W.17/1-5, Exh.P.W.18/1-46 and Exh.P.121/1-2 to Exh.P.140/1-2. Out of the prize bonds of Rs,5,00,000 the accused had admitted the prize bonds to the extent of Rs,2,55,000 as owned by him (in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.).
Admittedly the appellant Ahmad Riaz Sheikh belonged to Haveli Lakha, a small town in Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. According to the prosecution story his late father Allah Baldish used to look after the farms and properties of Mian Aslam Hayat Wattoo, Ex, Director General, F.I.A, According to the prosecution the appellant had joined F.I.A. In the year 1977 as a Sub-Inspector. But in the course of his service he accumulated assets beyond his known sources of income through acts of corruption and corrupt practices, The prosecution in the course of trial even produced video cassettes to show
33. The learned trial Court has also held that House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore (of the estimated value of Rs,55,00,000) belongs to the accused and his minor sons were merely its benami owners.
However, the learned trial Court refrained from forfeiting the said house on the ground that the children of the accused had not been heard during the trial. The learned trial Court should have summoned and heard them during the trial as it had done in the case of acquitted co-accused of the appellant. But as it had failed to do so, we find it difficult now at this stage, to pass any order for forfeiture of the aforesaid house for the reason that the prosecution has not moved this Court for doing so.
' It is amazing that the appellant did not even bother to withdraw his monthly salary from the relevant account of the bank every month. In this respect he has taken the plea that he did not need it as he had other sources of income as well. It is surprising that a person who had joined service as an A.S.I. Or S.I., had in due course of time acquired such immense sources of income that he did not bother to draw his monthly salary from his account. Lavish spending on his own travels and also on the foreign trips of his family has been established on record by the prosecution. Even though the co-accused of the appellant have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, yet the aforesaid fact is not enough to infer that the appellant had not indulged in acts of corruption and corrupt practices. On account of the acquittal of the co-accused of the appellant we have refrained from taking into consideration the allegations of the prosecution regarding the alleged benami properties which were held by the appellant in the names of his acquitted co-accused, except those in the names of, his wife and children, but in view of the overwhelming evidence on record' we have no doubt,in our mind that the accused had indulged in acts of corruption and corrupt practices and had thereby amassed immense wealth which he had been spending lavishly on himself and other members of his family. The explanation given by the accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. In this respect is clearly unsatisfactory. To say that heaps of evidence had been collected against him because some officials of F.I.A. Working in RAB, Lahore were inimical against him, is, of no avail. After joining F.I.A. As A.S.I. Or S.I., the assets and income of the accused 'sky rocketed' and it is not even imaginable that a person of humble origin, would accumulate wealth to the extent that one would not be able to describe it. Expenditure on the foreign trips of his family members and details of his H household expenditure within the country is simply amazing. Huge amounts continued polling in his bank account even when he was out of the country and this is his defence version that as he was out of the country, he is not aware of the deposit of those amounts in his account.
34. First of all we take up Clause (a) of the charge which relates to recovery of gold ornaments weighing Rs, one crore approximately. According to the prosecution the accused owned and possessed the jewellery aforesaid which was got prepared by him from certain Jewellers which were examined before the learned trial Court as P.W.5 to P.W.18 and also P.W.43. The Jewellery was recovered by the Investigating Officer on. The disclosure made by the accused and who had then led the Police party to his residence 38-C, Model Town, Lahore and from where it was recovered and taken into possession and in this respect the statement of the I.O. As P.W.51 is corroborated by an other witness i.e, P.W.25 Muhammad Sabir, A.S.I. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Accused/appellant claimed that the gold ornaments aforesaid belong to his family, his mother, his brother and the Baig family and according to his version the aforesaid persons had 'declared the said Jewellery in their tax returns and had got assessed by the Income Tax Authorities. According to the defence version the Jewellery 'aforesaid belonged to different ladies of the family of the accused and shown to hive been recovered from one place. The learned trial Court has pointed out that Mst. Uzma Beg in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has nowhere claimed that the said ornaments were owned by her. Similarly Khalid Nawaz accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also did not claim that any of the Jewellery articles aforesaid belonged to his wife.
Accordingly to the prosecution story the Jewellery aforesaid was recovered from the house of Ahmad Riaz Sheikh situated at 38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore on 21-3-2001 and was taken into possession by the I.O. Vide memo. Exh.P.T. The learned trial Court in its judgment has also pointed out that during the course of investigation and even thereafter, neither Ahmad Riaz Sheikh nor his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz or even Mst. Uzma Beg or the wife of Khalid Nawaz accused or even Maryam Begum whose Jewellery was allegedly taken into possession had never submitted any application before the N.A.B. Authorities, nor had they submitted any application before the learned trial Court.
Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly reached the conclusion that there was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that this Jewellery belonged partially. To Mst.
Uzma Beg, Khalid. Nawaz or Mst. Maryyam Begum and hence it was established on record that the entire Jewellery recovered from the house of Ahmad Riaz Sheikh belonged to him and to his wife Mst. Shabina Riaz. The accused/ appellant was unable to produce any convincing evidence to contradict the said allegation and hence we are inclined to confirm the finding aforesaid of the learned trial Court.
35. So far as Clause (b) of the charge is concerned, it has been mentioned above that the appellant has himself admitted the prize bonds to the extent of Rs,2,55,000 in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. As regards Clause 'h' of the charge, the accused/appellapt has not been able to properly rebut the allegation that 306 Kanals of land owned by him in village Qalandarpur, District Bahawalnagar was in fact acquired with ill-gotten money. No convincing evidence is on record that his mother was in fact a resourceful person or had even sufficient means of income, although she had a share in Haseeb Basit Filling Station. It is evident that this property was purchased by the appellant himself in the name of his mother, who later gifted it in his favour.
36. So far as Clause `e' of the charge is concerned, the appellant himself admitted this property in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence furnished by P.W.33 and the documents Exh.P.W.33/1 to Exh.P.W.33/7 and Exh.P.W.33/9 had rightly reached the conclusion that though this property had been purchased in the name of Shabina Riaz, but the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Admitted the ownership of this property and so the charge in that respect stands proved.
37. As regards Clause 'k' of the charge, the accused does not deny that these two bank accounts belonged to him. Besides salary the amounts which had been deposited in these 'accounts' have not been fully explained. It has also been mentioned above that the accused did not use to touch his salary as, according to him, he had `other sources of income' as well. Receipt of huge amounts as 'prize money' on prize bonds held by him is also amazing. Probably he was the 'luckiest person' in that respect.
38. As regards Clause 'n' of the charge which related to the allegation of lavish spending by the accused, it has already been discussed above. Detail of monthly household expenditure, amounts of utility bills, expenditure of foreign trips, acquisition of enormous landed property and style of living of the accused/appellant, as per the prosecution story, could be the envy of the richest persons of the, land.
39. In view of what has been discussed above, allegations embodied in Clause (a), (b), (e), (h), (k) and (n) of the charge, stand fully established against the accused/ K appellant. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him for the offence under section 9(a)(v) read with section 10 of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999.
40. It may be pointed out here that even though the learned trial Court found the charge as contained in Clause (a) in affirmative, yet it did not pass any order regarding forfeiture of the Jewellery recovered from the house of the petitioner. Similarly it had refrained from passing any order regarding forfeiture of any amount lying in the bank accounts of the accused/appellant or even concerning prize bonds. The learned trial Court had also held that House No,38-C, Faisal Town, Lahore belongs to the accused and his minor sons were merely its benami owners. However, it.Had strangely refrained from forfeiting the said house on the ground that the children of the accused (in whose names the said house stands for the time being) had not been heard during the trial: However, as the N.A.B. Has not moved this Court for the forfeiture of the aforesaid Jewellery and bank accounts, prize bonds, etc. We do not find any justification for passing an order in that respect on our own and for, this reason would like to uphold the order of the learned trial Court regarding the forfeiture of the properties to the extent of the properties which had been forfeited by it through the impugned judgment.
41. In view of what has been stated above, we uphold the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court on the charge under section 9(a)(v) read with section 10 of the N.A.B.
Ordinance, 1999. So far as the quantum of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, as the accused and other members of his family have suffered over a long period of time on account of the prolonged proceedings and the agony faced by them over the years and also considering the ailment of the appellant (on the basis of which he was allowed bail during the pendency of appeal), we feel that under the circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment for five years will serve the ends of justice. Hence we accordingly reduce the sentence awarded to the accused by the learned trial Court to five years' R.I., with a fine of Rs, Two Crore. In case of default in payment of fine, the same will be recovered from the accused/appellant in the manner prescribed under section 386, Cr.P.C.
42. So far as the direction regarding the forfeiture of properties is concerned, we uphold the order of the learned trial Court.
43. With the above modification in the impugned judgment regarding the quantum of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The bail lyonds of the accused/appellant are cancelled. He be sent to Jail to undergo the unexpired portion of sentence of imprisonment. He is however allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
44. So far as the writ petition filed by Mst. Shabina Riaz, etc. (W.P. No,15582/04) and the writ petition filed by Mst. Uzma Beg, etc. (W.P. No,7109/2004) are concerned, although the said petitioner/co- accused of the appellant have been acquitted by the learned trial Court in this case, yet the jewellery, documents, articles, etc. Claimed by them cannot be returned at this stage before the expiry of period for filing appeal against the judgment of this Court. The reason is that the jewellery articles/documents, etc. Mentioned in the writ petitions are part of evidence on record and had been exhibited in the course of trial. After the expiry of period of appeal, the petitioners can move the learned trial Court for the return of the articles/documents, etc. To them. In case any search application is filed the learned trial Court will decide the same on its own merits. However, if an appeal is filed against this judgment the aforesaid documents/articles, etc. As mentioned in the writ petitions, shall be disposed of in accordance with the orders passed in the appeal. With this observation, writ petitions filed by Mst. Shabina Riaz, etc. And Miss Uzma Beg, etc. Are dismissed.