' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---This judgment shall also decide connected Ehtesab Criminal Appeals Nos.12 and 13 of 2006 arising out of judgments dated 20-9-2006 of Accountability Court No,1, Peshawar wherein exactly similar question of law and facts are involved.
2. Appellant filed appeal under section 13(C) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 passed by Accountability Court No,1, Peshawar whereby the objection petition filed, against the freezing order dated 14-10- 2003 of respondent No,2, has been dismissed while confirming the freezing order and allowing the appellant to file fresh objection petition in accordance with the provision of section 13 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
3. Precise facts are that respondent No,2 issued the freezing order dated 14-10-2003, the same was placed before the Accountability Court No,1, Peshawar on 29-10-2003 i,e, on the 15th day, the appellant filed objection petition before the Accountability Court and after hearing preliminary arguments the appellant was directed to produce evidence finally the evidence was completed the learned Accountability Court No,1 on the conclusion of evidence heard the arguments and vide impugned judgment dated 20-9-2006 confirmed the freezing order dated 14-10-2003, hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is totally illegal, perverse, arbitrary, capricious and against, the law, hence liable to be set aside; that the impugned order suffers from misreading and misinterpretation of the statute thus falls in error and the learned trial Court has delivered the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law; that the learned court below failed to take into account that the freezing order of respondent No,2 after 15 days has ceased to exist and the court has mis-interpreted clause (f) of section 12 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 and it was to be confirmed within 15 days and in this respect relied on unreported judgments in Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No,92 of 2009 converted into Writ Petition No,532 of 2010 decided on 1-6-2010 and Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No,24 of 2010 decided on 8-9-2011.
5. On merits, it was contended that on record the properties freezed are the ancestral property of the appellant and no judicial consideration is given to the evidence produced by the appellant in this regard and thus has wrongly confirmed the freezing order vide the impugned order dated 20- 9-2006.
6. As against this, learned counsel for Deputy Prosecutor-General for NAB argued that there was no negligence on the part of the prosecution rather the same is also an act of appellant as well as of the court, rather the application for confirmation was submitted by the prosecutor within stipulated period of 15 days. As regarding the merits of the case, it is contended that the objection petition was declared as premature because admittedly, the same was filed before the passing of confirmation order and at present the appellant has no cause of action to file an appeal because the right to file objections in accordance with the provision of section 13 of NAB Ordinance, 1999 has been provided to the appellant, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and the appellant should file his fresh objection petition before the trial court below.
7. Arguments heard and record perused, which shows that prosecution has submitted the application for confirmation of the freezing order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the respondent No,2, under section 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 before the concerned court on 19-10- 2003 i,e, within stipulated period of 15 days. The order-sheets indicates that due to one or the other reasons matter was not finally disposed of and the delay/lapse cannot be attributed only to the prosecution rather the same is an act of appellant as well as of the court. The learned trial court while holding and relying on the judgments cited in its impugned order are appreciated because its established principle of law that an act of court should not prejudice any person including the prosecution, nor any one should suffer for the act or omission of the court, nor it should prejudice anyone.
8. The unreported judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant wherein no doubt it is held that on the expiry of 15 days provided therefore, the freezing order automatically cease to be operative and effective and the Accountability Court is not justified to infuse new life to legally dead order. In this respect it is observed as the same is a settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own particular facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the date of submission of application is within 15 days, and the delay was due to one or the other reasons and no such circumstances exist in the cited unreported judgments and as such, keeping in view the present circumstances in hand the objection is overruled.
9. Without dilating on merits, since the learned Accountability Court No,1 has not dismissed the objection petition on merits rather has dismissed the same as premature because the objection can be filed within 14 days from the date of the order of freezing such property and admittedly the objection petition was filed prior to that, therefore, very legally the rights of the appellant are protected by allowing/permitting them to file fresh objection petition, as such when the appellant has the right to file objection petition freshly, therefore, the appeal on merits is not maintainable.
10. In view of the above, the Appeal along with Criminal Miscellaneous No,16 of 2006 and connected appeals are dismissed with the direction to appellant, to file fresh objection before the Accountability Court No,1, Peshawar in accordance with the provision of section 13 of NAB Ordinance, 1999 and the court is advised to decide the same within three months preferably.