' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C.J.--- Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 8-6-2002 of Accountability Court-III, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, whereby appellant was convicted under section 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and sentenced to five (5) years' imprisonment with fine of Rs,10,00,000 (ten lac) and in case of default to further undergo one year's S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the accused. As a consequence thereto accused was also ceased to hold public office, if any, and disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date, he was to be released after serving the sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a Member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any Province. He was also not allowed to apply for or be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of any loan or advances or other financial accommodation by any bank or financial institution owned or controlled by the Government, for a period of ten (10) years from the date of conviction.
2. A reference under sections 18(g) and 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was sent to the Accountability Court, for alleged commission of corruption and corrupt practices under fraudulent purchase of fleet of luxury vehicles for the National Assembly Secretariat at inflated rates, illegal use of official vehicles and misuse of official telephones etc. The charge was framed on 16-11-2001, which reads as under:--- "That you Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani as Speaker National Assembly of Pakistan during period from 1993 to 1997 dishonestly and fraudulently purchased a fleet of luxury vehicles for the National Assembly Secretariat including two Pajeros, one land cruiser and one Corona car at inflated rates, without inviting tenders from Messrs Najam Motors, Lahore (owned by your co-accused Najam-ul- Saqib) and State suffered a loss of about Rs,1,00,00,000 and your co-accused Najam-ul-Saqib received undue benefit of Rs,20,37,625; that you used to utilize official vehicles for your personal use and for the use of your relatives and associates and State suffered a loss of Rs,13,15,466 on account of maintenance and POL expenses; that you maintained an additional Speaker's office illegally and without any justification in Ghazi Illam Din Shaheed Hostel, G-5, Sector Islamabad and paid Rs,1,72,788 as rent; that you spent illegally Rs,1,10,000 on furnishing the Speaker's camp office at Multan and that you misused official telephones due to which State suffered a loss of Rs,36,04,728 and thereby you committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined in section 9 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 which is punishable under section 10 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 within the cognizance of this Court."
3. The appellant did not plead guilty. The trial commenced. Prosecution got examined thirty-one
(31) P.Ws. And produced documentary evidence. The appellant refuted the allegation in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He produced documentary evidence in his defence and opted not to be examined as his own witness in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the offence charged of is not made out; conviction recorded of offence introduced through amendment in 2002, being retrospective was a nullity and relied on Office Memorandum No,F1(5)R.12/80, dated 11th March, 1981, Extracts taken from the Chairman and Speaker (Salaries, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1975 and Extracts taken from Legislative Drafting Manual.
5. On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor-General NAB reluctantly argued that the offence alleged was proved, despite the fact, that prosecution evidence lacks support on the allegation of corruption and corrupt practices.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Focal point for determination is whether the appellant:---
(i) purchased a fleet of luxury vehicles for the National Assembly Secretariat at inflated rates;
(ii) utilized official vehicles for his personal use and by his relatives;
(iii) maintained an additional Speaker's office at Islamabad and Lahore, paid Rs,1,72,788 as rent and illegally spent Rs,1,10,000 on furnishing of the Speaker's camp office at Multan;
(iv) misused the official telephones due to which State suffered a loss of Rs,36,04,728.
8. We have thoroughly examined the prosecution evidence. P.W.14, P.W.15 and P.W.26 deposed that, on the orders of appellant, a Pajero and Land Cruiser were purchased from Najam Motors, Lahore, whose quotations were at second number. Government had banned the purchase of vehicles above 1300 CC. Sanction of Finance Committee was necessary but same was not obtained. P.W.14 however, in cross-examination deposed that circular dated 7-6-1994 was not applicable to the National Assembly Secretariat, because it was a sovereign body and National Assembly Secretariat could purchase vehicles; Secretary had proposed in his note dated 22-6-1995, that Speaker may select and approve and the Speaker ordered "approved as proposed". P.W.15 admitted that letter, dated 7-6-1994 was not binding upon National Assembly Secretariat. P.W.26 in cross-examination admitted that it is the duty of Secretary to sanction expenditure after considering that the same were according to rules. He further stated that appellant never talked to him regarding purchase of vehicles, likewise did not ask Joint Secretary to process the case, in his presence. Syed Shaukat Hussain, Joint Secretary, since dead, is stated to have compared the invoices and placed order for purchase of vehicles without inviting tenders by relaxing rules, in terms of Rule 21-A. Whether the appellant had given nod to this procedure knowingly with a mens rea to benefit his co-accused or cause loss to the national exchequer? Frankly credible evidence is not available on this count.
9. P.W.5 to P.W.12 were produced by the prosecution to prove charge of misuse of vehicles by the appellants as well as his relatives causing loss of Rs,13,15,466 on account of maintenance and POL charges. P.W.5, Akhtar Saeed Gul, Transport Assistant, National Assembly Secretariat, produced log book of various vehicles and statement of expenditures on repairs and POL charges. In cross- examination he admitted that there was no consumption limit of Petrol for the vehicles used by the Speaker. P.W.6 to PW.13 are the drivers of National Assembly Secretariat, who deposed about the use of vehicles by the appellant.
10. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.13 were produced by the prosecution. P.W.1, Muhammad Aggan Daheri, Superintendent, National Assembly of Pakistan, deposed that Rs,60,000 were paid to Tariq Ayub Khakwani, Staff Officer of appellant, for purchase of woolen carpets and curtains but these items were used at the residence of Speaker at Multan. P.W.2, Shafiq Ullah, Deputy Secretary, deposed that three directives were received from Speaker's Office for payment of room rent charges for Speaker's stay in Chamba House, Lahore, Rooms Nos.4 and 5, Federal Lodges Islamabad and Federal Lodges No,1, Karachi. P.W.2 further deposed that there were no rules for establishing camp office for Speaker National Assembly. P.W.13, Muhammad Zubair Ahmad, Staff Officer, National Assembly Secretariat, deposed that the Admn. Section of National Assembly had handed over him Rs,50,000 which he, paid to Messrs Carpet Emporium Multan, who had supplied carpets and curtains for the use of Speakers' Camp Office, Multan. In cross-examination P.W.13 deposed that foreign dignitaries, Provincial Ministers and Chief Minister visited the camp office at Multan and after dissolution of Assembly, the items were brought back to National Assembly. Secretariat. He further deposed that no official telephone was installed at camp office, Multan and telephone Number 892180, installed at the residence of Speaker at Lahore was a private number.
11. Documentary evidence, was produced by the prosecution to prove their case. In defence evidence, Minutes of Finance Committee, 1991 were produced as Exh.D.G. Item No,12 of the Minutes of Finance Committee, 1991 depicts that use of 2000 C.C. Or bigger cars by the Speaker was accorded and the Speaker being Chairman of two Committees was also entitled for use of two cars like all other Chairman of the Committees.
12. Section 3 of Office Memorandum No,F.1(5)R.12/80 dated 11th March, 1981 reads as under:--- "(3) Principal accounting Officer.--- (a) The Secretary Incharge of Ministry/Division shall be the Principal Accounting Officer of his Ministry/Division, its attached departments and subordinate offices in respect of the expenditure incurred against the budget grant(s) controlled by his Ministry/Division."
Extracts taken from the Chairman and Speaker (Salaries, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1975 reads as under:--- "7. Transport.---The Chairman and the Speaker and the member of their families shall be entitled to the use of an official car maintained at government expense.
8A. Residential Telephone, etc.--- (1) The Chairman and the Speaker shall be entitled to a telephone to be installed at their residences at government expense and shall be exempted from payment of its rental and charges of calls made there from within the country.
(a) A casual telephone facility shall be provided to the Chairman and Speaker during their tour within the country.
' Extracts taken from Legislative Drafting Manual read as under:- "As a matter of fact "a" or "an" does not mean "one". If the provision is intended to apply to only one, and not an indefinite number, then the use of "a' or "an" would be inappropriate. In such a case adjective "one" should be used."
The Investigating Officer misunderstood import of sections 7 and 8-A of the Act to arrive at a finding that appellant was entitled to use one car and one telephone. The learned Accountability Court ran under the same impression. Extracts from Legislative Drafting Manual clarifies the position clearly defining the word "a" and "an" not to be understood as one.
13. For what has been discussed above we find that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt entitling the appellant to benefit of acquittal and we order accordingly.
Appellant is on bail his surety bond stands discharged.