MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 17-12- 2011 passed by the learned Accountability Court-II, Quetta Balochistan, whereby the application under section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ("NAO") read with section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") and section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("PPC") for recovery of fine against the petitioner was accepted.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the reference No,3 of 2004 was filed by the National Accountability Bureau ("NAB") authorities against the petitioners, whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to suffer various terms of imprisonment. The petitioners assailed the judgment before this court in Ehtisab Appeals Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 2005, which were dismissed through separate judgments. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioners did not assail the judgment of this court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were released from jail on completion of their term of imprisonments. The NAB authorities moved an application for recovery of fine and the order passed thereon, has been assailed in this petition.
3. Mr. Manzar Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proposition involved in this case is sub judice before the Hon'ble apex Court; however, he could not cite any reference or precedent in this behalf rather sought time to do the needful.
4. Mr. Ameer Zaman Jogizai, learned Senior Prosecutor NAB, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned order. He referred to the judgment of this court passed in Mali Ghousuddin v. The State (PLD 2012 Balochistan 104) and contended that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and thereafter the judgment rendered by this court, no cavil is left to hold that the NAB is legally authorized to recover the fine from the petitioner and in case of his failure same can be recovered as the arrears of land revenue. He pointed out that in Haji Ghousuddin's case (supra) the judgment passed by this court was upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court because the Civil Petition No,298 of 2013 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26-6-2013, therefore, the law laid down by this court still holds the field. He finally urged for dismissal of the petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Prosecutor NAB and considered their contentions in the light of relevant provision of law.
' The controversy involved in this case relates to an identical proposition which came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmed All Siddiqui v. Sargodha Central Cooperative Banking Ltd., reported in (1989 SCM R 824), wherein it was held that:- "It is settled that where an offender having the means of paying a fine chooses to undergo imprisonment rather, than pay the fine, it is a sufficient special reason which will enable the Court, in its discretion, to order that the fine may be levied, notwithstanding that the offender has served the full term of imprisonment ordered for default of payment of fine. It was observed in Siddappa v. State of Mysore AIR 1957 Mysore 52 that it is wrong to think that serving the full term of imprisonment fixed for default in payment of fine should not be taken as a discharge of liability but only as a reasonable punishment for non-payment of fine. "
' The referred pronouncement of the Hon'ble apex Court was also relied by this court in Haji Ghousuddin's case supra. The bare perusal of section 386, Cr.P.C. And section 70, P.P.C. clearly manifests that the amount imposed in lieu of fine can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, while the provision of section 33-EE NAO is analogous to referred provisions of Cr.P.C. And P.P.C. The law of recovery of fine not only in NAB cases but in any other law for the time being enforced, where the quantum of sentence also entails the levy of fine and the accused, who has been convicted for any term of imprisonment followed by payment of fine, though served out the imprisonment in default of payment of fine, all he/she cannot be absolved from payment of fine because the imprisonment undergone in default be absolved from payment of the because the imprisonment undergone in default is to be treated as a reasonable punishment for non-payment of fine, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Accountability Court-I, Quetta is unexceptional and does not call for any interference by this Court.
' Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly.