1. GHULAM RABBANI, J. -- The petitioner is a qualified doctor. He appeared in competitive examination of CSS held for the year, 1995 and having secured 2nd position was allotted DM Group.
2. While he was serving as Assistant Commissioner in the Province of the Punjab a Reference was filed against him by the Acting Chairman NAB. Pursuant to that he was tried by the Accountability Court No, IV, Lahore and on being found guilty of an offence of corruption and corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 9 of NAB Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance) he was awarded punishment under Section 10 of the said Ordinance to suffer. R.I. for four years and a fine of Rs, five lac; in default thereof to undergo further R.I. for one year, etc. vide judgment dated 22.11.2000. Appeal there against was dismissed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 17.5.2004, with the following observations:-- "In the afore-said circumstances the sentence of imprisonment for four years was on the higher side and ends of justice would have been met if he had been awarded sentence of imprisonment for a period of two years and the sentence of fine to the tune of Rs, 2,00,000 would have been sufficient. However, since the appellant has undergone the entire period of sentence of imprisonment we are inclined to reduce the sentence to what he has already undergone. Since the amendment in Section 15 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 came into effect during the pendency of this appeal, we are inclined to further modify the sentence in terms of this Section and hold that the appellant shall stand disqualified for a period of 10 years in terms of the amended provision and not 21 years as directed by the learned Trial Court which was in accord with the un-amended Section 15 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999."
3. ' Feeling aggrieved the petitioner file Cr.P.L.A. No, 361-L of 2004 before this Court, which was dismissed for non- prosecution by this Court vide order dated 27.3.2006. Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No, 282 of 2006 made by the petitioner for restoration of the main petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22.3.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner made another Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No, 181 of 2007, which too, vide order dated 14.1.2008. Petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Petition No, 9 of 2008, which was heard by a three Members Bench and was allowed in the following terms vide order dated 14.11.2008:-- ' For the reasons to be recorded later Criminal Review Petition No, 9 of 2009 is allowed, orders of this Court dated 14.1.2008, 22.3.2007 and 27.3.2006 are recalled, Criminal Petition No, 361-L of 2004, is converted into appeal and is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as of the Trial Court are set aside, conviction and' sentence awarded to he petitioner is also set aside and he is acquitted of the charges.
4. (Sd.)
5. Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J.
6. (Sd.) ljaz-ul-Hassan Khan, J.
7. (Sd.)
8. Ch. Ejaz Yolisaf, J. ' lt appears that no reasons were recorded, rather above- referred short order dated 14.11.2008 was, later, re-called and the case was ordered to be fixed for re-hearing after notice to the parties vide order -dated 19.3.2009, reproduced as follows:-- "While dictating judgment in the instant case answer to certain question, inter alia, as to why the amount to interest accrued on the money deposited in the ' Accounts No, PLS 215, PLS 916, CD-1184 and Special Saving Account No, SSA-90, etc. was withdrawn by the petitioner and was kept with him till initiation of proceedings against him i,e, during the period from 14.4.2000 to 31.8.2000 etc. could not be found as such short order dated 14.11.2008 announced in Court may be recalled and the case may be fixed for re-hearing after notice to the parties.
9. (Sd.)
10. Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, J.
11. Hon. Mr. Justice ljaz-ul-Hassan Khan Agreed (Sd.) ljaz-ul-Hassan Khan Hon. C.J.
12. I agree.
13. (Sd.)
14. ' Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J."
2. In the above backdrop of the case this matter has come up before us. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a short order, for the reasons to be recorded, signed and announced by the Judges like the one in the instant case, disposing of the ease determining the rights and liabilities, of parties finally, is fully operative in law with all legal consequences to follow. He placed reliance on, the case reported as The State v. Asif Adil and others (1997 SGMR 209). Learned counsel has stated that in the instant case, since a short order was recorded and was duly signed by a Three Member Bench of this Court whereby Criminal Petition No, 361-L of 2004 converted, into appeal and allowed; the judgments of Trial Court as well as of the High Court were set aside, conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner were, too, set aside the he was acquitted of the charge, no//s against the petitioner, thereafter, was pending to be fixed for re-hearing.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General NAB, has, vehemently, opposed this proposition and has stated that the review petition filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending in view of order dated 19,3.2009.
4. We have carefully gone through the case-law cited (supra) by learned counsel for the petitioner, ln that case a Division Bench of the High Court of Singh comprising Muhammad Aslam Arain and Shoukat H. Zubedi,. JJ. Disposed of two sets of appeals viz. appeals filed by convicts against their convictions and sentences and the appeals filed by the stated against acquittal of co-accused, vide order dated 24.2.1994, in the following terms:-- "Convicts' appeals. -- Arguments concluded. For reasons to be recorded separately, we accept this appeal set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
15. State's acquittal appeals--Arguments concluded. For reasons to be recorded separately, the appeal is dismissed."
16. ' The same Beach also disposed of two cases, however, before the reasons could be recorded in the above matters, Shoukat H. Zubedi, J. who was an Additional Judge, was not confirmed and ceased to be Judge w,e,f, 23.3.1994. Other learned Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Aslam Arain, J. as then he was, on 7.7.1994 passed the order that "Short order passed in the above appeals (on 24.2.1994) be treated as final orders. The learned Judges retired from service w,e,f, 11.5.1995 on attaining the are of superannuation. The State, therefore, filed petition for leave to appeal against the above-referred short order dated7.7.1994 before this Court which was dismissed on 20.11.1996. Ajmal Mian, J., as then he was, having referred to plethora of the case-law, expressed that among others following legal principles are deducible: -- (i)-.
17. (ii).
(iii) -
(iv) ...
(v) .... .
18. (vi).....
19. (vii)
20. (viii)that the short orders which have been recorded and signed by the Judges concerned and have been pronounced in Courts shall be fully operative in law and in consequence thereof, the cases in respect of which the same have been passed shall stand disposed of in law."
21. ' Having said so, it was held that the short orders under reference passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, which were duly signed and pronounced by the learned Judges, for all intents and purposes, in view of the situation obtaining, were final orders and could not be set aside and the case could not be remanded for re-trial of the accused who stood acquitted in some of the appeals by the High Court and in some of the appeals by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, lt was observed, that:--.
22. "12. ln the case in hand, Shoukat H. Zubedi, J., one of the learned Judges of the Division Bench which heard the above matters and passed short orders, was not confirmed as a permanent Judge on24.2.1994 and, therefore, had ceased to be a Judge, lt was not possible to have reasons of the above Division Bench as a judgment in support of the above short orders. However, it was open to the other learned Judge available, namely, Muhammad Aslam Arain, J. to have recorded reasons in terms of Rule 3 in Chapter 4-H under the sub-heading "Rules of Procedure in Appeals" in Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the High Court quoted hereinabove in para. ' which would have been deemed to be minutes and not judgment. This was not done by the above learned Judge. Oh the contrary, on 7.7.1994 he ordered that the short Orders in appeals passed on be treated as final orders. He also ceased to be a Judge with effect from 11.5.1995 upon his retirement. The position which has now emerged is that none of the two Judges of the Division Bench concerned is available and, therefore, the reasons in terms of above Rule 3 cannot be recorded. The point in issue in, as to whether the above short orders whereby the convicts' appeals were allowed and the acquittal appeals were dismissed, can be treated as final orders for the purpose of disposal of the appeals concerned. The answer of the above controversy is very aptly provided in the judgment in the case of in re; Office Reference dated 28.4.1981 (supra) decided by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh comprising Zafar Hussain Mirza and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ.
23. (as their lordships then were), namely, that the cases in which short orders have been recorded and signed by the concerned Judges, stand disposed of and the said short orders are fully operative. The above view is in line with the view earlier taken by another Division Bench on the same High Court quoted hereinabove in para. 10(viii). Somewhat similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court comprising A.R. Sheikh and Shafiur Rehman, JJ. ln the case of Abdur Rahim v. Taj Muhammad (supra), in which short order recorded in Urdu allowing a revision petition by the Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was treated as a final order.
24. 13.We are inclined to hold that the short orders under reference passed by the above Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which were duly signed and pronounced by the learned Judges, for all intents and purposes in view of the situation obtaining, are final orders. The same cannot be set aside and the cases cannot be remanded for re-trial of the accused who stand acquitted in some of the above appeals by the High Court and in some of the appeals, by the Trial Court as well as by High Court. Our above view is supported by a well-settled proposition of law that a party should not be made to suffer on account of an act/omission on the part of Court or other State functionaries, ln this regard, reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Hartif and others v.
25. Muhammad and others (PLD 1990 SC 859), the case of Fateh Khan v. Boze Mir (PLD 1991 SC 782), the case of Abdul Rashid v. Abdul Salam and others (1991 SCM R 202) and the case of Sherin and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others (1995 SCM R 584)."
5. In the instant case a short order dated14.11.2008 was recorded in clear terms and was signed by Judges of this Court, whereby the judgments of Trial Court as well as of Appellate Court were set aside, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner were also set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Needless to observe that the decision so made and announced through Short Order is presumed to be solemn, well-considered, conscious, deliberate and a final verdict covering all points arising out of the case. Considered as such, in our view it ought not to have been fixed for re-hearing. Admittedly, the order dated 19.3.2009 was passed without hearing the petitioner. Having said so, in the light of above-cited case (1997 SCM R 209), we are clearly of the view that the tis in the instant matter cannot be treated to be pending having already attained the finality in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order dated 19.3.2009 recalling the short order with direction that the case be fixed for re-hearing after notice to the parties is set aside; as a result the short order dated 4.11.2008 shall stand revived and operative in law. Office is - directed to consign the file to record. 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.