1. ' SYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.--- The applicant Fazal-eHadi has sought bail in a case pending before the Accountability Court Sindh, Karachi bearing Reference No,53 of 2007 for the offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined in section 9(a)(i) and punishable under section 10 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999.
2. ' It is the prosecution case that the applicant is the Assistant Director (Investigation) in National Accountability Bureau, Sindh and was authorized to conduct inquiry/investigation against Allah Rakha, the Tapedar for his involvement in corruption and corrupt practices. On receipt of written complaint from one Zafar Baloch the complainant, that the applicant/accused was demanding Rs,1 million cash for excluding his name from the inquiry by softening the role of his colleague Shahid Raza.
3. ' An inquiry was authorized against the accused/applicant for demanding illegal gratification of Rs,1 million or GLI Toyota car as a motive or reward for showing favour to the applicant and his colleague, accordingly a trap team was constituted under the supervision of Mr. Asim Lodhi the learned Judicial Magistrate and on 18-6-2007, prior to arranged meeting with the applicant the tainted money was handed over to complainant by the Judicial Magistrate. The complainant passed on the tainted money to applicant and thereafter, the learned Magistrate entered in the car of the applicant and recovered the tainted money i.e. Rs,2,00,000 from his possession. The recovery memo. Was duly prepared, thereafter, the applicant was taken into custody.
4. ' During the custody, the applicant offered to enter into plea bargaining in a sum of Rs,7,45,700 which included a sum of Rs,6,50,000 received as illegal gratification from one Abdul Ghafoor Memon and including 15% NAB accidental charges.
5. ' After the investigation the reference was filed before the Accountability Court in September, 2007.
6. ' We have heard Mr. Shaukat Hussain Zubaidi, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Ainuddin Khan, A.D.P.G.A. For NAB.
7. ' Learned Advocate for the applicant outrightly contended that he should have not filed this petition for bail but serious flaws and contradictions in the prosecution story have persuaded him to file this petition. He contended that the complainant Muhammad Zahoor Baloch filed an application for pardon/becoming an approver to D.G. NAB Sindh vide application dated 13-6-2007 and in the said application nothing has been mentioned regarding the so-called illegal demand of the applicant and thereafter, on the next day the complainant filed an application to Director-General, NAB against the applicant demanding illegal gratification in cash or by way of Toyota Corolla GLI car and no date and time has been mentioned regarding the demand of such illegal gratification which was duly received by the NAB office on 15-6-2007, it was argued that it was absolutely afterthought.
8. ' In respect of the transcripts of a telephonic conversation between the complainant and the applicant regarding the above transaction he contended that the same has not been proved through the expert. He further contended that in the verification report nothing is mentioned about the date and time of demanding the illegal gratification of the complainant from the applicant and even the warrant of arrest is stereo type and it was not mentioned the nature of offence committed by the applicant.
9. ' Mr. Zubaidi further contended that practically no handing over and taking over regarding the tainted money to complainant was made on 18-6-2007 at 2120 hours, and claimed that the same have been prepared at the NAB office, as there are some contradictions in raiding report and the statement of the complainant and so also in the reference. The statement of the complainant was recorded after the delay of 8 days which has lost its sanctity and even the said car was seized but the same has not been mentioned in seizure memo. And the same has already been returned to the wife of the applicant after passing of 36 days.
10. ' On the other hand Mr. Ainuddin Khan learned A.D.P.G.A., NAB has placed a letter, dated 21st May, 2007 addressed to complainant by Syed Sajid Hussain DD-Corrd (1W-1) in which the complainant was directed to appear before the accused/applicant on 11th June, 2007 at 1100 hours which shows that the accused/applicant was authorized as Investigating Officer in the said case. He further contended that in all the documents date of arrest and recovery is same and further there is no contradiction regarding the recovery of tainted money from the possession of applicant and the complainant has corroborated the prosecution case, and regarding the interested witnesses he contended that any person can be made as a witness and the Judicial Magistrate is an independent witness who has also supported the raid and prepared raid report and he has no enmity with the accused, and he further argued that these are minor contradictions which did not affect the prosecution case while prima facie case has been proved against the applicant and the applicant is not entitled of bail at this stage and further the applicant has filed an affidavit of plea bargain vide dated 14th July, 2007 and besides that he sent a letter to D.G. NAB Sindh, Karachi in his own handwriting and has admitted by swearing to God that he has done mistakenly and he may be pardoned.
11. We have considered all the contentions raised by the learned counsel. The learned Advocate pointed out some contradictions in the reference but reference is mere opinion of the NAB/Investigating Officer, however, prima facie the possession of the tainted money with the accused as claimed by the prosecution does not need any further inquiry.
12. ' That regarding the telephonic conversation between the applicant and the complainant, no doubt the same would be proved in the trial Court either through the expert or the complainant himself, while the delayed statement of the complainant. Has not weakened the prosecution case, and the car has been rightly returned to wife of the applicant as the same was not the case property.
13. ' The case of the prosecution regarding plea of bargain dated 14-7-2007 and letter to D.G. NAB Sindh by the accused. Whereof the accused admitted of receiving the money. That even otherwise at this stage, it is premature to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution and regarding the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the applicant can be thrashed out before trial Court. The applicant was the Assistant Director in NAB Sindh Karachi and was conducting inquiry against the corrupt people but if such officer himself would involve in corruption what would be the fate of NAB and apparently Pakistan is facing a serious menace of corruption in the society and the same should be curbed with the iron hands. At this stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be looked into while prima facie case is made out against the applicant as he himself offered for plea bargaining and filed an affidavit to pay more amount he demanded and received from the complainant and others, further he himself in his own handwriting admitted all the mistakes committed by him and even then he requested the D.G. NAB to pardon him. In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
14. ' Above are the reasons of our short order dated 18-10-2007 by D which we had dismissed the above petition.