1. MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.- The Petitioner has filed this petition on 25.2.2005 with the following prayer:-
(a) To declare that the respondent No. 3 is not permitted under the law to harass or humiliate the petitioner under the cloak of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
(b) To declare that the respondent No. 3 or any NAB Official is not permitted under the law to direct/compel attendance of any person under the garb of Section 19 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
(c) To refrain the respondent No. 3 from harassing or humiliating the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
(d) Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
2. The Petitioner alleges that he was employed by the Government of Sindh an as Excise & Taxation Officer in the year 1976, and had a with meritorious record at his disposal of successful raids to curb the evil of narcotics, lt is urged that in the year 2001, the Petitioner along with numerous officials was involved by the National Accountability Bureau under alleged charges of corruption and corrupt practices, misuse of authority, and the swindling away of minors from the public exchequer. Accountability Reference No. 10/2001 was filed against the petitioner including' the principal accused Agha Wazir Abbas and others. All the accused were acquitted except the principal accused Agha Wazir Abbas, who it is alleged was directly involved in issuance of the fake permits. The petitioner remained absent and proceedings against him were subsequently separated from trial. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under National Accountability Ordinance 1999, on the purported sanction of Respondent No. 2 on the alleged delegation of powers by the respondent No. 1. The purported authority/power letter dated 17.1.2002 addressed to respondent No. 3 conveyed that the petitioner had acquired movable and immovable properties beyond his pecuniary sources in his name and in the names of his dependants as benamidars, disproportionate to the known sources of his income and the investigation of the same was entrusted to respondent No. 4. During this time and in the absence of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 allegedly harassed his family members and his women folk.
3. Consequently, C.P. No. D-186/2005 was filed and the same was disposed of on the basis of the undertaking of the respondents No. 4. Lt is urged, that purported authorization of investigation carried doubt by the respondent No. 1 was in violation of law and that the, entire investigation so far conducted was corrump non judice, without legal authority and was liable to be quashed.
4. The respondents in their para-wise comments have stated that the jurisdiction has vested in the Chairman, NAB, to order for initiating inquiry and investigation against the petitioners for carrying out investigation into corruption and corrupt deeds, it is further pleaded that the Chairman NAB was authorized to delegate powers in writing for authorized purposes of his office by an officer of the NAB as he may deem fit and proper. The legal requirement to initiate proceedings against any persons contemplated in the preamble of the Ordinance for the purpose of recovery of looted money is the spirit behind the Act, the Director- General of NAB could also be termed an Officer of the NAB and the purported action for delegation of his power was in consonance with the law and hence no illegality was committed by the respondent No. 4 by holding an inquiry/investigation against the petitioner.
5. We have heard Mr. K.A. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris Lari learned counsel for NAB, and have perused the record o f the case very carefully.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that there should be some limit to investigation as the petitioner cannot be made subject to agony of perpetual investigation, which has affected his dignity and honour and has caused mental and physical torture, lt is urged that in case of Muhammad Latif AS1, Police Station Saddar v. Sharifan Bibi and another (1998 SCMR 666), Choudhry Shah Muhammad Inspector v. Mst. Ramzan Bibi (NLR 1998 Cr. 204 S.C.) The consensus of the highest court of judiciary is that under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court had jurisdiction and was well-competent to correct such proceedings and pass necessary orders to ensure justice and fairplay. The investigation authorities do not have the entire and total authority of running investigation according to their whims and if any investigation was launched, mala fidley or beyond the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency then the same may be corrected and appropriate orders could be passed.
7. Keeping in view of the above principle of law, we have examined the factual aspects of the case which suggests that after the investigation was commenced in the year 2001 by the NAB Authorities, Reference No. 10 of 2001 was filed against the petitioner and the principal offender Agha Wazir Abbas, who were tried in accordance with law.
8. On the basis of the material available on record and the comments filed by the respondent Chairman NAB has confirmed opinion for the purpose of initiation of inquiry as a consequence thereof impugned notice were issued to the Petitioner, who was directed to attend the office of respondent No. 3. Consequent thereupon, C.P. No. 186/2005 was filed which is still pending adjudication. The Petitioner, his daughter Fauzia Ali his brothers Ejaz Ahmed Baloch, Ayaz Ahmed Baloch and Fayyaz Ahmed Baloch being members of his family were served notices to attend the investigation which was replied to by their advocate on 4.10.2007. Much of the emphasis has been placed, on behalf of the Petitioners, on Section 19 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- "19. Power to call for information:- The Chairman NAB or an officer of the NAB duly authorized by him) may during the course of an inquiry (or investigation) (of an offence under this Ordinance):-
(a) call for Information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Ordinance or any rule or order made thereunder:-
(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the inquiry (or investigation);
(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; (omitted)
(d) require any bank or financial Institution, notwithstanding anything any information relating to any person whoso ever; including copies of entries made in a bank's or a financial Institution's books such as ledgers, day books, cash books and all other books Including record of information and transactions saved in electronic or digital form, and the keepers of such books or records shall be obliged to certify the copies in accordance with law (and);
(e) where there is a reasonable suspicion that any person is involved in or is privy to an offence, the Chairman NAB/nay with the prior approval in writing of the High Court concerned, direct the surveillance of that person maybe carried out through such means as maybe necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Chairman NAB, may in this regard seek the aid and assistance of any (Governmental) agency and the information so collected maybe used as evidence in the trial under these ordinance; Provided that the copies obtained or information received or evidence collected under clauses (d) and (e) shall be (kept) confidential and shall not be used for any purpose other than for legal proceedings under this Ordinance.
9. Ln the case of Ghulam Hussain Baloch v. Chairman NAB (PLD 2007 Karachi 469), dilations on the above provisions have been reproduced hereinbelow:- "For the purpose of present case, the provisions of Section 19(a), (b) & (c) care relevant, therefore, discussion would be in respect of said provisions. A bare reading of the said provisions reveals that if an inquiry or investigation is ordered in respect of offence punishable under the Ordinance by the Chairman NAB then during the course of said inquiry or investigation of such offence the Chairman NAB or any officer duly authorized by him is authorized to call for the information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of provisions of the Ordinance or any rule or order made thereunder, ln this clause, 'any person' would mean all persons including witnesses and accused from whom the information is required. The question arises as to what sort of information the person is required to furnish to the competent authority.
10. The information would be in respect of offence alleged or any matter which can suggest that the provisions of the Ordinance, rule or order made thereunder have been contravened. For that purpose competent authority is required to ask any person from whom such information is required to provide information which has nexus with the above provisions. If a person does not know the point or allegation or offence or fact on which information is to be provided or the person against whom such information is required then how such person would be in a position to help the competent authority, therefore, while calling the information from any person, the person must be informed the fact, point, allegation, offence, name of accused, specified matter, if any, concerning the matters of the provisions in the notice so that the person can furnish such information. If such specified information is of such a natures which, if furnished through any mode will serve the purpose, then such person should not normally be called to appear in person." lt will not be out of place to mention that the notice contained all the requisite details in connection with the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner, lt is the duty of the investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender and would not commit himself prematurely in view of the facts and accused any person. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer as required to record statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C, and also maintain the record.
11. We have examined the notices issued to the Petitioners and the Petitioner's relatives and are of the view that the same are in consonance with Section 19 of the Ordinance. However, the Respondent No. 3 cannot be permitted to take the law in their hands and humiliate and harass the Petitioner under the cloak of the Ordinance 1999, in any manner. For what has been discussed above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent No. 3 are restrained from harassing or humiliating the petitioner and compelling his attendance in the garb of the Ordinance, 1999, except in due course of law. With the above observations, the petition stands allowed in the above terms.