The instant petition has been moved on behalf of Ch. Shamshad Ahmad through the Additional Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB for according approval of his 'plea bargain' and voluntary return of misappropriated money, which has been accepted by Chairman, NAB. The petitioner faced the trial in Accountability Court No, 3, Rawalpindi in Reference No, 18/2007 titled 'State versus Syed Muhammad Makhdoom Gillani etc" and was finally convicted and sentenced. It is contended that the petitioner has voluntarily returned an amount of Rs, 20,70,000/- through CDRs Nos,2667259-1319 & 2667260-1320 so the approval of his 'plea bargain' and voluntary return of money be approved.
The learned ADPG has reiterated the above contentions.
2. Section 25 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 provides that before authorization of investigation the Chairman NAB may accept the offer of voluntary return and 'plea bargain' but in case of the pendency of the case or appeal, the Chairman may accept the offer and refer the case for approval to the Court or as the case may be, the appellate Court for release of the accused. The plain reading of Section 25(b) vividly reveals that in case the trial is pending then the approval is to be accorded by the trial Court and in case of pendency of the -appeal, the same would be given by the appellate Court on a reference made by the Chairman NAB. In case no appeal is filed or the same has already been decided then the approval is to be given by the trial Court. In murder cases after decision of the appeal or in case no appeal is filed, the permission to compound the offence under Section 345 Cr.P.0 is given to the Court of Session and same is vested with powers to set aside the conviction and sentence and pass an order for release of convict in case the offence is validly compounded under Section 345(2) read with Section 310 PPC or waiver (Afw) of qisas in Qatl-i-Amd under Section 309 PPC. The provision of Section 25(2) of the Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, if interpreted on the same anology, vividly reveals that in case the trial is pending, the trial Court, will accord approval and in case the appeal is pending this power would vest with the appellate Court. However,, if no appeal is pending, whether it is not filed or has been decided, the Court competent to accord approval would be the trial Court only. In the instant case the convict/petitioner had no filed any appeal. The contention that his co-accused has filed appeal is also no ground to entertain his application by this Court. The Chairman NAB should approach the trial Court through a reference under Section 25(2) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 for approval of the plea bargain of the convict. With the above observation, the office objection is sustained.