' JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---The above titled appeals have been presented against order, dated 21-4-2009, passed by Accountability Court-II, Balochistan, Quetta, in Application No,3 of 2009.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the private respondent has filed an application before trial Court with a request that, since he has already completed his conviction period and also served additional sentence in default of payment of fine, therefore, his properties, which were subject matter of the main reference, be released.
' Ground on the basis of which the application was filed, was that, at the time of passing of judgment, the trial Court has mentioned, "accordingly, accused Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti is convicted under section 10 read with sections 11 and 12 of National Accountability Ordinance to five years' R.I. And fine of Rs,1,50,000,00, the assets/ properties of accused are forfeited as set off against the amount of fine, however, in case of non-recovery/non-payment of the amount/fine, accused shall undergo for further terms of two years' R.I.".
' The trial Court has accepted the application vide order, dated 21-4-2009 and directed the Executive District Officer, Revenue, authorities, as well as the Cantonment Executive Officer, Quetta Cant to release the properties of respondent/application as mentioned in the judgment and in the order.
' Feeling aggrieved from the order, dated 21-4-2009 passed by Accountability Court-II, Balochistan, Quetta, the NAB authorities have filed instant' appeal.
3. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order impugned is contrary to law and facts. According to him, the private respondent/applicant has no concern with the properties in question, as he has denied its ownership during trial of main reference. He has further submitted that the trial Court had forfeited the properties and the apex Court has finalized the matter, therefore, the, order amounts to reopening to the controversy. In the end, he has submitted that the trial Court, vide order, dated 24-3-2008, has ordered for auction of the properties in favour of appellant, but through impugned order, it has recalled its own order, which is beyond its jurisdiction.
4. Private respondent, appearing in person, has vehemently contested the appeal and submitted that, actually, before his conviction, his entire properties were subject 'hatter of the reference. The trial Court, while convicting him, has imposed a fine of Rs,1,50,00,000 and his assets/properties were forfeited as set off against amount of fine. According to him, the main judgment reflects that in case of no recovery/non-payment of fine, he shall further undergo for two (2) years' R.I. The private respondent has submitted that since he had preferred to serve further sentence instead of payment of fine, therefore, the properties, subject matter of the reference, are required to be released. He further submitted that the trial Court has rightly accepted his application and has released the properties in view of stated facts.
5. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. It is a fact that in view of the judgment, dated 17-7-2002, the private respondent was convicted and his properties were confiscated to recover fine of Rs,1,50,00,000. In the said judgment, it has further been held that, in case of non-payment of amount of fine, he shall further undergo for two (2) years' R.I. Said judgment was assailed up to Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, but same was upheld with certain modification and reduction in the quantum of sentence vide order, dated 8-5-2006 passed in Criminal Petition No,482 of 2003. It is important to mention here that in the said order of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the following sentence was missing:- "The assets/properties of the accused are forfeited as set off against the amount of fine".
' The private respondent, feeling aggrieved, has preferred a Review Petition No,39 of 2006, before Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, who has accepted the review petition vide order, dated 20- 5-2008, resultantly, the above mentioned sentenced was added to its original order.
' It is important to mention here that before review order, dated 20-9-2008 passed by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the appellant has preferred an application under section 33-E of the NAB Ordinance, with a request to allow the authority to auction the property subject-matter of the reference/judgment so as to recover the amount of fine. The trial Court, vide order, dated 24-3- 2008, accepted said application and had directed the authorities to auction the properties in question. It is noteworthy that when the trial Court passed the order of auction, till then, review petition was not decided. It is a matter of record that in spite of getting clear directions from trial Court the NAB authorities did not succeed in auctioning the properties, in the mean time, Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has reviewed its order and the private respondent has completed his extra sentence instead of payment of amount of fine.
' As regards objection of appellant that, the order impugned of trial Court amounts to reopening of the order of apex Court is concerned, we are not in agreement with him, because the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has simply upheld the main judgment of trial Court, therefore, no question of reopening of said judgment arises. What the trial Court has done is that, it has released the properties, which were subject-matter of the main reference, because these were forfeited conditionally and were retained by the NAB authorities for the recovery of amount of fine. The trial Court in its main judgment has clearly stated that in case of non-recovery of the amount of fine, the respondent shall further undergo for two 2 years' R.I.., meaning thereby that, the properties in question were simply retained for recovery of amount of fine. This fact further gets corroboration form the earlier order, dated 24-3-2008 passed by trial Court, whereby, the NAB authorities was allowed to auction the properties in question for the purpose of recovery of amount of fine. It is strange to mention here that, what was the reason that the NAB authorities have filed an application for permission to auction the properties. Had the trial Court forfeited the properties in default of amount of fine, then, there was no necessity to request the Court to get permission for its auction, therefore, the appellant was also convinced that forfeiture was subject to amount of fine.
Since the properties were forfeited as set off against the amount of fine, therefore, intention of trial Court was quite clear that the properties/assets, subject matter of reference were forfeited only to recovery the amount of fine, therefore, it was held in judgment that, in case of non-recovery of amount of fine, the convict shall further undergo for two 2 years, ' Now, situation has arisen that the respondent has also served a sentence for non-payment of fine, therefore, legally speaking, the judgment of trial Court, dated 17-7-2002 has fully been acted upon and the convict cannot be punished twice, because the period he served against payment of fine cannot be returned to him. The law does not provide double punishment to the convict. He has since completed his entire sentence, including the additional sentence of two years in lieu of amount of fine, therefore, the properties are no more subject-matter of the judgment and the trial Court has rightly released the same in view of above analogy. Furthermore, the trial Court being the original Court is the best forum to interpret its own judgment. Since the apex Court has simply upheld the judgment of trial Court, wherein, the properties were forfeited conditionally, therefore, it is the trial Court to clarify and explain its own judgment and this act, in no way, amounts to reopening of controversy.
' Next ground raised in appeal by the appellant is that the order impugned of the trial Court amounts to reversal of its earlier order, dated 24-3-2008, passed on the application of appellant for permission of auctioning of properties in question.
' As has been mentioned above that at the time of passing said order, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has not passed its order on review, therefore, earlier order of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan did not mention the term, "set off against fine". In view of this fact, the Accountability Court had allowed the appellant for request of auction. After allowing review petition by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and by inserting the term "set off against fine", the situation has been changed, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. The objection of appellant that the trial Court has reviewed/ reversed its earlier order has no force, because on both counts, the situation was different. Furthermore, the earlier order was on the request of appellant to auction the properties, which request was allowed, but the appellant has failed to avail the same. The impugned order is altogether on different facts and grounds, therefore, both the orders have no relevancy at all, as such, in no way, the order impugned amounts to reversal/review of the earlier order.
' Without prejudice to above, even otherwise, the bar contained on review in criminal cases, is on judgment as has been mentioned in section 369, Cr.P.C., but there is no provision of law that debar the Court to review or alter its order. Since the appeal is against an order, therefore, the objection raised by appellant has no substance at all.
6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we are not inclined to accept the appeal, as such, the same is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.