' Through this order we propose to decide W.P. No, 345/11, W.P. No, 5411/11 and W.P. No, 274/11 and W.P.
No, 611/11.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions are that one Ramzan Ali lodged a complaint with Chairman NAB with the contention that on 23.9.2004 he entered into an agreement to purchase Plot No, NW 387 measuring 12 Marlas situated at Main Murree Road, Rawalpindi for a sum of Rs, 98,00,000/-. The complainant further alleged that a sum of Rs, 35,00,000/- was paid by him to Raja Muhammad Hanif in the presence of Raja Altaf Hussain and Raja Muhammad Amin Abbasi, whose particulars are given in Paragraph No, 2 of the complaint.
' The complainant further alleged that it was also agreed that the agreement to sell shall be finalized on 23.1.2005. It was also alleged by the complainant that the said Raja Muhammad Hanif failed to fulfill his contractual obligations towards the complainant, however, with the intervention of the respectables of the locality a reconciliation was arrived at; and on 29.4.2005 Raja Muhammad Hanif received the remaining sale price from the complainant and effected a registered sale-deed in favour of the complainant.
3. It was then disclosed to the complainant that the actual owner of the plot in question is not Munshi Muhammad, Afzal (present petitioner) and the plot in fact belongs to the father of the present petitioner. The complainant alleged that the registered sale-deed had been effected in his favour but possession of the plot is with some other person. It is noteworthy to point out here that the petitioner Raja Altaf in W.P. No, 5411/2010 is a witness of the sale-deed and Qazi Naseer Ahmad, petitioner in W.P. No, 274/11 at the relevant time of registration of the sale-deed was working as DDOR, Rawalpindi in the year 2005, who sanctioned and approved the sale-deed which was registered on 25.4.2005 in favour of the petitioner. NAB authorities took cognizance of the matter and issued warrant of arrest of the present petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. No, 5411/10 was ordered to appear before the Naib authorities under Sections )9 and 27 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Qazir Naseer Atimad was also required to appear before the Investigating Officer/Assistant Director NAB. The petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions challenged the jurisdiction of the, NAB authorities to issue the warrant of arrest of the writ: petitioner in W.P. No, 345/11, and orders requiring the appearance of the other petitioners before the Investigating Officer in W.Ps. No, 274/11 and 5411/11. The present petitioner has already been granted.
The case is adjourned to-interim post arrest bail in
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that perusal of the application would show that no offence is made out against the petitioners. At the most it was a contractual dispute and no criminal liability can be fixed upon the present petitioner and petitioners in W.P. No, 5411/10, W.P.
No, 274/11 and W.P. No, 345/11 could not have been ordered to appear before the NAB authorities as they do not fall within the definition of a person as envisaged in Section 5(o) of the NAB Ordinance.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of NAB while advancing his arguments submitted that House No, B133 Chandni Chowk Satellite Town was sold by the complainant by portraying it as House No, NW-387 Satellite Town Rawalpindi. The seller (Munshi Muhammad Afzal) by concealing the fact made this sale in 1999 and the notices were rightly issued to the petitioners in W.P. No, 5411/10, W.P. No, 274/11 and warrant of arrest of the petitioner in W.P. No, 345/11; to appear before the Investigating Officer under Section 19 read with Section 27 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and A.D.P.G appearing on behalf of NAB authorities and perused the record.
7. The only point requiring the determination would be as to whether the petitioners fall within the definition of a person under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and whether they can be summoned by the Chairman, NAB during the course of enquiry or investigation.
8. Section 5(o) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 reads as under:--- "5(o) "Person" [unless the context otherwise so requires] includes in the case of a [company or a body corporate], the sponsors, Chairman, Chief Executive, Managing Director, elected Directors, by whatever name called, and guarantors of the company [or body corporate] or any one exercising direction or control of the affairs of such [company or a body corporate], [ ..] and in the case of any firm, partnership or sole proprietorship, the partners, proprietor or any person having any interest in the said firm, partnership or proprietorship concern or direction or control thereof."
' But at the same time we have to examine the effect of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which defines corruption and corrupt practices.
"9. Corruption and Corrupt Practices:- (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices:- (i i)f he accepts or obtains from any person or offers any gratification directly or indirectly, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward such as is specified in 5.161 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) for doing or for bearing to do any official act, or for showing or for-bearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or dis-service to any persons; or
(ii) if he accepts or obtains or offers any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with his official functions or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(iii) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use, or for the use of any other person, any property entrusted to him, or under his control, or wilfully allows any other person so to do; or.
(iv) if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage; or
(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidars owns, possesses, or has [acquired]`right or title in any [assets or holds irrevocable power-ofattorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot reasonably account for, [or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income]
(vi) [if he] misuses his authority so as to gain any benefit or favour for himself or any other person, or renders or attempt to render to do so, [or wilfully fails to exercise his authority to prevent grant, or rendition of any undue benefit or favour which he could have prevented by exercising his authority]
(vii) if he has issued any directive, policy, or any SRO [Statutory Regulatory Order or any other order which grants or [attempts to grant] any [undue] concession or benefit in any taxation matter or law or otherwise so as to benefit himself or any relative or associate or a benamidar, [or any other person] or himself or any relative or associate or a benamidar [or any other person] or
(viii) if he commits an offence of wilful default; or
(ix) if he commits the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), and thereby dishonestly induces members of the public at large to deliver any property including money or valuable security to any person; or
(x) if he commits the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1360), with regard to any property including Toney or valuable security entrusted to him by members of the public at large;
(xi) if he, in his capacity as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commit criminal breach of trust as provided in Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XVL of 1860) in respect of property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion, and
(xii) if he aids, assists, abets, attempts or acts in conspiracy with a person or a holder of public office accused of an offence as provided in clauses (i) to (xi)."
9. It is explicit from Section 9(a) that a holder of a public office, or any other person is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices if he aids, assists, abets attempts or acts in conspiracy with a person or a holder of public office of an offence as provided in clauses (i) to (xii) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
10. Had the intention of the legislature been to exclude private persons as the present petitioners it would have been specifically provided in Section 9(a) that any other person means a person defined in Section 5(o) and not the private person, Clause (xii) of Section 9 National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 reads as under:- "If he adds, assists, abets, attempts or acts in conspiracy with a person or holder of a public office..
' It clarifies that it includes a private person alongwith a person defined in Section 5(o).
11. It would also be beneficial to refer to the definition of "Accused" and "offence" as given in Section 5(a) and 5(n) respectively when read with Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 makes it clear that any person can be tried or summoned by the NAB authorities. The relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:- "5(a) "Accused" shall include a person in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe, [that he] is or has been involved in the commission of any offence [triable] under this Ordinance or is subject of an investigation [or] inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau, or [any other agency authorized by the National Accountability Bureau in this regard under this Ordinance].
"5(n) "offence" means the offences of corruption and corrupt practices [and other offences] as defined in this Ordinance and includes [the offences] specified in the Schedule to this Ordinance."
12. Reading of Section 9(a) makes it clear that the use of words "any other person" is not related or attached with the words "holder of a public office" as there is a comma before the word "or".
13. Similarly Section 19 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is also reproduced as under:-- - "19. Power to call for information. The Chairman NAB [an officer of the NAB duly authorized by him] may, during the course of an inquiry or investigation [of an offence under this Ordinance] or any rule or order made thereunder:---
(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Ordinance or any rule or order made thereunder;
(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the inquiry or investigation;
(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; [(d) require any bank or financial institution, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, to provide any information relating to any person whosoever, including copies of entries made in a bank's or a financial institution's books such as ledgers, day books, cash books and all other books including record of information and transactions saved in electronic or digital form, and the keepers of such books or records shall be obliged to certify the copies in accordance with law; and] 1(e) where there is reasonable suspicion that any person is involved in or is privy to an offence under this Ordinance, the Chairman NAB may, with the prior approval in writing of the High Court concerned, direct that surveillance of that person may be carried out through such means as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Chairman NAB, may in this regard seek the aid and assistance of any Government agency and the information so collected may be used as evidence in the trial under this Ordinance: ' Provided that the copies obtained or information received or evidence collected under Clauses
(d) and (e) shall be [kept] confidential and shall not be used for any purpose other than for legal proceedings under this Ordinance.] ' This empowers the NAB authorities to call for information from any person during the course of an enquiry or an investigation.
14. It is an established principle of interpretation of statutes that one provision of a statute cannot be read as a sore thumb and for purposes of interpretation the entire statute has to be read as a whole.
15. The examination of relevant sections of the NAB Ordinance makes it clear that if a private person aids, assists, abets, attempts or acts in conspiracy with a person (as defined in Section 5(o)) or a holder of a public office accused of an offence can't be from the application of NAB ordinance.
16. In the present case Qazi Naseer Ahmad at the relevant time was a holder of a public office being DDOR/Registrar, Rawalpindi and the petitioners had acted in conspiracy with one another.
17. Moreover Section 19 of the NAB Ordinance empowers the NAB authorities to call for information from any person for purpose of satisfying whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of the NAB Ordinance.
18. For what has been discussed above we hold and declare that the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are applicable even to a person who is not holder of a public office but who has aided, assisted, abetted, attempted or acted in conspiracy with holder of a public office and the words "any other person" appearing in Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are to be understood and applied accordingly. For removal of any doubt or ambiguity it is clarified that a private person can be proceeded against under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 if the other conditions mentioned in the Ordinance are satisfied.
19. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the present writ petitions are devoid of any merit. The same are, therefore, dismissed.