' Through the present constitutional petition the petitioners have challenged filing of another Reference No,18 of 2006 against the petitioners and their father Shahbazuddin Chaudhry under section 18(g) read with section 24 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, on the ground that petitioner are already facing Accountability Reference No,41 of 2000 which is pending trial in Accountability Court No,IV, Lahore and filing of the subsequent reference on the basis of the alleged commission of offences by the petitioners through their money exchange situated in Saudi Arabia is a mala fide action on the part of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are already under arrest since 11-5-2002 and are in the custody of respondent No,1 since 20-6-2002 and allegations were that they had received investments and money from 400 Pakistan National through their money exchange named as Shahbazuddin Chaudhry Money Exchange, Al-Khubar, Saudi Arabia, and through cheating and fraud received from them 18 million Saudi Rials and issued cheques and drafts of U.S Dollars in lieu of money received from them in the shape of Saudi Rials. However, the cheques were not honoured by the Bank due to insufficient funds in the accounts of the accused petitioners. He submitted that however, after due investigation Accountability Reference No,41 of 2002 was filed against the petitioners in September, 2002, and said Reference is still pending adjudication in the Accountability Court No,IV, Lahore. He submitted that since the petitioners had filed various writ petitions in this Court against the respondents, therefore, the respondents with mala fide intention now have filed another Reference bearing No,18 of 2006, wherein it is alleged that petitioner had defrauded and cheated another 20 Pakistani Nationals and received from them Rs.1.8 crores and misappropriated the same through money exchange set up by the petitioners in Saudi Arabia. The learned counsel thus submitted that the filing of the said reference is clear-cut abuse of process of law, therefore, the said reference may be C declared to have been filed without lawful authority and in abuse of process of law which was filed on 15-8-2006. The learned counsel submitted that for commission of offence under section 9(a), subsections (ix) and (x) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, it is mandatory to show that members of public at large were dishonestly induced to deliver money and valuable security was entrusted to the accused petitioners and they had committed criminal breach of trust. The learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 had observed that:-- "219. So far as the punishments and creation of offence by the Impugned Ordinance are concerned, they are protected by Article 12 of the Constitution, in that, under Article 12 of the Constitution ex post facto legislation can neither create new offences nor provide for more punishment for an offence than the one which was available for it when committed. This is the limited impact of Article 12 of the Constitution."
' He submitted that instant reference has been filed without any lawful authority and is in violation of fundamental rights and constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. He, therefore, submitted that writ petition may be accepted and the Reference No,18 of 2006 filed on 15-8-2006 may be declared to have been filed without lawful authority and against the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy to the petitioners.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor for NAB has vehemently opposed the contentions and has submitted that the NAB has already filed parawise reply and comments to the writ petition in hand and submitted that present reference has nothing to do with the reference already pending in the Accountability Court bearing No,41 of 2002 and submitted that present is a reference wherein 20 Pakistani Nationals have been cheated and defrauded and deprived by the petitioners through their money exchange business in Saudi Arabia and received from them Rs.1.8 cores and submitted that all the transactions are independent transactions, timings of the commission of the offences in said reference are also different and also the persons defrauded. He, therefore, submitted that here is no nexus between the two references and submitted that petitioners are in fact creating hurdles in the way of Accountability Couit and submitted that proceedings of the Accountability Court were stayed by this Court vide order, dated 18-1-2007.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Prosecutor for NAB and have also perused the record.
5. Since the petitioners are already facing Accountability Reference No,41 of 2002 before the Accountability Court for running illegal money exchange inviting public at large to send their money and deposits through said company to Pakistan, however, allegedly the money and deposit of the people at large received from them in the shape of Saudi Riyals were not sent to Pakistan and in this way allegation is that about 18 million Saudi Riyals equivalent to Pak Rs.40 crores were misappropriated by the petitioners who deprived them from their hard earning, therefore, the present References bearing No,18 of 2006 on the similar allegation of the defrauding and cheating another 30 Pakistan Nationals depriving them Rs.1.8 crores through the same company of the petitioners would not authorize the NAB Authorities to file a separate and independent reference against the petitioners merely because said information about the commission of offence falling within the ambit of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was brought to the knowledge of the NAB Authorities subsequently by the aggrieved persons. Mere difference of dates of deposits and amounts and persons depositing the said amounts in the company of the petitioners would not constitute separate offences neither separate reference through a subsequent investigation could be filed, therefore, Reference No,18 of 2006, can at most be termed to be supplementary reference to the one already filed bearing No,41 of 2002. If contention of 'learned Special Prosecutor NAB is allowed, then in that event there can be no end to the filing of references. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that Reference No,18 of 2006 shall be treated by the Accountability Court already trying the accused as a supplementary reference.
6. This writ petition is, therefore, I accepted in above said terms.