' JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---Precisely stated facts are that an inquiry was initiated against the appellant, who is an ExDirector-General, Livestock. During the inquiry proceedings, the Director- General NAB Balochistan passed an order on 2nd December 2011, whereby the following accounts of the petitioner were freezed:-- S.No Account Number Bank Title of Account 1 20620-714-107433 My/summit Bank G-11 Markaz, IsalmbadMuhammad Azam Kansi 2 08784162035 Standard Chartered Bank Quetta-do- 3 100-4554-6 UBL Liaqat Bazar, Quetta-do- 4 005816-5 NBP Shahra-e-Iqbal-do- 5 0103-00035907-001Summit Bank Liaqat BazarKhushal Enterprises ' Subsequently, on 28th December, 2011, the Acting Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB, filed an application before the Accountability Court-I Balochistan, Quetta for confirmation of the freezing order. The appellant filed an objection to the application on 6th February, 2012. The accountability Court-I Balochistan Quetta rejected the objections of the appellant and accepted the application by means of the order impugned dated 14th February,. 2012, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the objections of the appellant, which is an illegality and irregularity. Accounting to him, even otherwise, while accepting the application, the trial Court did not give any reason for confirmation of the freezing order passed by the Director-General, NAB, Balochistan. He further stated that the order is operating against the appellant since December, 2012, but till date, no reference has been filed, therefore, the property of the appellant could not be freezed for an unlimited period, therefore, on this score as well, the order impugned is illegal and unlawful.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB Balochistan, opposed the contention and stated that under section 13 of the Ordinance, the objections shall be made before the Court within 14 days from the date of the order freezing such property, but the appellant did not file his objection within time, as such, the trial Court has rightly rejected the objections and confirmed the freezing order, therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case, It is to be noted that under section 12 of the Ordinance, the power of the Chairman to freeze the property is limited to 15 days and any period exceeding such time limit is subject to confirmation by the Accountability Court. The order of freezing the. Properties by the Chairman NAB or Court is a sort of restriction, which has a backing of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which is reproduced below:-- Art: "23. Provision as to property. Every citizen shall have a right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan subject to the constitution and any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest."
A restriction can be imposed upon a property of a person under section 12 of the NAB Ordinance, which has two portions, one assigns power to the Chairman NAB to freeze a property of a person for 15 days, further confirmable by a Court where a reference shall be filed, while the other portion assigns power to the Court to freeze the property of an accused facing trial on its own, till the final disposal of a reference. No doubt, under the law, a restriction could be imposed on acquiring, holding and, disposing of a property against any person, if so required, but the Constitution says that such restriction must be reasonable, therefore, any act or order resulting into freezing of a A property for an unreasonable excessive period will of course be outside the meaning of reasonableness. Both the validity of law and action taken in such a manner becomes justiceable from stand point of public interest. Initially, a period of 30 days was provided under section 12 of the Ordinance for the Chairman NAB to pass an order freezing a property, but the period was curtailed to 15' days pursuant to the judgment passed by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Khan Asfand Yar Wali and others v. The Federation of Pakistan reported in PLD 2001 SC 607, hence the provisions section 12 of the NAB Ordinance have now been made consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Section 12 of the Ordinance is exhaustive and self explanatory, which provides that the Chairman NAB may, at any time, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the a person has committed an offence, punishable under the NAB Ordinance, order the freezing of his property or a part thereof, but that order should not exceed 15 days. Any order beyond 15 days shall be subject to confirmation by a Court, where a reference shall be filed. It means that the request for confirmation of a freezing order must be made by the Chairman NAB, which shall follow by a reference before the Court against the person, whose property is sought to be freezed. Section 16 of the Ordinance provides that on receiving a reference, the trial should be proceeded on day to day basis and should be disposed of within 30 days. The honourable Supreme Court in the above-referred judgment has already held that after confirmation of the freezing order by the trial Court, it shall continue till the final disposal of the reference. Thus, it is evidence that the freezing order and its confirmation period has been limited by the law for a reasonable time, therefore, no property should be ordered to be freezed for an unlimited period. The purpose of a request for confirmation of freezing order of the Chairman NAB is to secure the ill-gotten property from. Its disposal before the decision of a reference by the trial Court. Usually the Chairman NAB passes such an order on the basis of all the possible evidence and material collected by the Investigating Officer against an accused. The period of 16 days provided by the Ordinance is to enable the Chairman to prepare a reference and sent into the Court along with the request for confirmation of the freezing order. Admittedly, the request has been made by the Additional Prosecutor-General, without a reference, and he is not certain as to when it would be filed, therefore, under such circumstances, the order impugned for confirmation without a reference is considered to be for an unlimited period, which is not only contrary to law, but is also against the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution.
5. Moreover, under the Ordinance, any order of freezing a property is valid up to 15 days and the moment, the stipulated period expires, the order automatically ceased to exist, therefore, it is necessary for the Court that there must be an order in field to confirm it. In the present case, admittedly the order of freezing of the accounts of the appellant was passed by the Director- General NAB Balochistan on 2nd December, 2011 expired on 17th December, 2011, as such, it ceased to exist, therefore, no question of its confirmation thereafter arises. The application filed by the Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB before the trial Court for its confirmation on 28th December, 2011 was not maintainable for the reason that there was no order of the DG NAB, Quetta, for confirmation. The trial Court, while entertaining the application, did not consider such an important aspect of the case and has wrongly allowed it, which is an illegality and irregularity.
6. Under the provision of section 12 of the Ordinance, certain obligations are placed upon the authorities to keep check and balance to avoid misuse` of authority, therefore, the request for confirmation of an order of freezing of property must also come from the Chairman NAB or the DG NAB in case power assigned to him, of course through the Prosecutor. The application for confirmation filed by the Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB is not supported by any document, confirming the request or permission of the Chairman, NAB or DG NAB, therefore, the request of confirmation is not in accordance with law. The order impugned passed by the trial Court on such an application is illegal.
7. Without prejudice to above, even otherwise, a precondition for confirmation of freezing order is that if there appears a reasonable ground for believing that the accused has committed such an offence, and for believing that a person has committed an offence, there must have been some material before the trial Court. Admittedly, no reference has been filed before the trial Court, therefore, a question arises as to how the trial Court believed that the appellant has committed an offence specified under this Ordinance, while confirming the freezing order. The order impugned without assigning any reason is contrary to the provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance; therefore, the same is illegal and unlawful.
8. As regards the contention so raised by the Deputy Prosecutor-General that the objection filed by the appellant was barred by time. In this behalf, section 13 is relevant, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "13. Claim or objection against freezing:---(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon all claims or objections against the freezing of any property under section 12 above. Such claims or objections shall be made before the Court within 14 days from the date of the order of freezing such property.
(b) The Court may for sufficient cause extend the time for filing such claims or objections for a period not exceeding additional 14 days.
(c) The accused or any other aggrieved party, whose claim or objection against freezing of property has been dismissed by the Court, may, within ten days file an appeal against such order before the High Court."
This section provides a remedy to an aggrieved person to file claims or objections before the Court against its own order of freezing of any property. A period of 14 days has been provided for filing objections or claims against such order and the Court may extend the period upto further 14 days.
To calculate the period of limitation to file the objections or claims, an aggrieved person must be aware of the passing of any of the order, therefore, the limitation would start running from the date of knowledge. It is, therefore, necessary for the Court to inform a person whose property is freezed under section 12 of the Ordinance. This section provides a right of appeal to an aggrieved person within a period of 10 days of the decision upon a claim or an objection so filed. In the present case, the appellant, instead of filing the objection against the order confirming the freezing of the properties, filed it before the announcement of the impugned order. The objections were already on record before the Court which could have been considered after the passing of the impugned order, but the same were rejected, declaring it as barred by time, which is neither just nor proper.
9. Thus, the appeal is accordingly allowed and the confirmation order dated 14th February, 2012, passed by the trial Couit is set aside. The aforementioned accounts freezed by the orders of the Director-General NAB shall be released forthwith.