1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH,J.--The Petitioner has impugned the order of Lahore High Court dated 09.01.2017 whereby the petitioner's plea to annual the "plea again" entered into by him with the NAB and to direct the authorities to refund the amount so paid in consequence to such voluntary return,was rejected.
2. 2.The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a Patwari on 7.8.2012, during an inquiry, was offered voluntary return which the petitioner, tinder pressure and to save his honour, accepted and in consequent thereto paid a sum of Rs.96,26,363/- which voluntary return is liable to be annulled and the respondents be directed to refund the said amount.
3. 3.The learned counsel representing the NAB contended that during inquiry, the petitioner has voluntary accepted the offer of the voluntary return extended by the Chairman,. NAB and, thereafter paid the amount so determined leading to closure of inquiry. It was submitted that the petitioner, during the proceedings was never arrested which would show that the acceptance of plea bargain and consequent payment was voluntary. As per learned counsel, the plea of the petitioner at this belated stage that, the voluntary return was under duress, is an afterthought. It was lastly contended that the transaction being a past and closed, could not be re-opened.
4. 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that the inquiry against the petitioner for having "assets beyond means" was initiated somewhere in the year, 2012. The officer conducting the inquiry, dug out the assets and bank accounts of the petitioner which were found beyond his known source of income and, therefore, the NAB authorities vide letter dated 6.8.2014 offered the A petitioner an option for voluntarily return of the illegal gained money. The record further reflects that the petitioner vide his letter dated 8.9.2014, asked the NAB authorities to intimate him his liability ascertained by the inquiry officer and also the grounds for ascertaining such liability so that he could opt for the option. It appears that the petitioner was duly informed about his liability and ultimately he paid an amount of Rs. 96,26,363/- without raising any grievance in respect of the amount or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to ascertain his liability. The petitioner ultimately availed the benefit of voluntary return. The petitioner, therefore, at this juncture, cannot be allowed to question his own voluntary return or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to determine the corruption money.
5. No case for interference is made out calling for interference by this Court. This petition, as a consequence, is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.