1. RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---The present petition is directed to challenge the order dated 4-9- 2006, by which the learned Judge Accountability Court No,IV, Sindh Karachi, allowed the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. By which the prosecution was allowed to lead additional evidence of witness Deputy Director NAB Ghulam Farooq to produce authorization letter issued by the Chairman NAB authorizing the Director-General NAB Sindh to order for investigation of the case.
2. ' Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Chairman NAB filed Reference against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The case proceeded and last witness Investigating Officer was examined. A question was put to the P.W.12 Investigating Officer Muhammad Hashim Qureshi that the Director-General NAB was not competent to authorize him to conduct the investigation, to which he replied in negative. After the examination of the Investigating Officer the prosecution closed the side on the same day viz. 8- 6-2006. On 28-6-2006 the Special Prosecutor NAB filed the application under section 540, Cr.P.C.
3. For examining the Deputy Director NAB to produce the above mentioned authorization letter, on which the impugned order was passed.
4. ' The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the name of the witness Ghulam Farooq was not mentioned in the List of witnesses; that the document purported to be produced through the witness was not mentioned in the Reference or investigation papers; that the said document has no relevancy with the .Facts of the case, that the prosecution may not be allowed to fill the lacuna which had emerged after the cross-examination to the Investigating Officer. He has relied upon (1) 1987 SCM R 886, (2) PLD 1991 Peshawar 143, (3) 1992 SCM R 140, (4) 2000 PCr.LJ 372, (5) 2003 PCr.LJ 1778 and (6) PLD 1970 Lahore 1431.
5. ' Conversely, the learned DPGA has stated that the necessity to produce the document had arisen after the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, where the defence challenged the authorization of Director-General NAB Sindh to authorize P.W.12 to investigate the case; that the said document is essential to the just decision of the case and meet the stand taken by the defence, as such, he has supported the impugned order.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that the name of the witness and the document purported to be produced are not mentioned in the Reference or in the list of documents. From the file and arguments it appears that the necessity to examine the witness and produce the document arose when the Investigating Officer was cross-examined, where the defence challenged the authority of Investigating Officer to investigate the case on the authorization given by the Director-General NAB Sindh.
7. ' The provisions of section 18 of the NAB Ordinance provides that the Chairman NAB is competent to authorize any Investigating Officer to investigate the case or he can authorize any officer of NAB to pass such order. In pursuance of the said authority, the Chairman NAB authorized Director-General NAB Sindh to order for investigation of this case. In pursuance of the said authority; the Director- General NAB Sindh authorized P.W.12 to investigate the case, as such, all the acts were official acts, therefore, they are presumed to be regularly performed as required under illustration "e" of the Article 129 of Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984. However, this presumption is always repbutable.
8. ' In the present case the petitioner tried to rebut the said presumption by challenging the authority of the Director-General NAB to authorize P.W.12 to investigate the case, as such question was asked from P.W.12 in the cross-examination, therefore, the prosecution was required to meet with the challenge of the defence by producing the required evidence.
9. In these circumstances, and particularly, creation of situation by the defence, the prosecution was justified in moving the application to bring the official document on the record through the witness mentioned in the application. The document purported to be produced in evidence is essential to the just decision of the case on the above point for the reasons that the investigation was started on the authorization of the said letter, if the document is not produced in evidence then it might affect the rights of the parties. Though we are aware of the fact, that section 156(2), Cr.P.C. Protects the investigation conducted by unauthorized officer, but at the same time parties should be given full opportunity to produce evidence available with them and then it is for the trial Court to decide the question in accordance with law.
10. ' There is no cavil to the legal propositions mentioned in the authorities relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, but the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the said authorities.
11. After considering the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, therefore, it does not require any interference. The petition is dismissed.