This order shall dispose of W.P.No.1523 3 of 2016 (filed by petitioner Rab Nawaz), W.P.No.684 of 2017 (filed by petitioner Ghulam Yasin), W.P.No.3970 of 2017 (filed by petitioner Ghulam Shabbir ) and W.P.No.1355 of 2017 (filed by petitioner Nazar Abbas), as all these petitions are originating from Reference No.47/2016 titled as "State v.
Muntazar Mahdi Khan and others" pending before the Judge Accountability Court, Multan. In all these petitions, the petitioners are seeking their release on bail after arrest.
2. Precisely stated the case of the prosec ution, as unfolded from the Reference is to the effect that one Muhammad Anwaar ul Haq, District Accounts Officer-I, Muzaf fargarh approached the FIA, Authorities with a complaint for fraudulent withdrawals from the account of manual pensions maintained in National Bank of Pakistan, Muzaf fargarh. Resultantly , case FIR No.10/2016 was registered at Police Station FIA/CBC, Multan. The probe led to the discovery of a scam, wherein an amount of Rs.450.000 Million (approximately) was embezzled through bogus, fake and tampered pension vouchers. Initially report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the court constituted under the Offences In Respect of Banks (Special Courts), Ordinance, 1984. Subsequent to that the matter was transferred to the Accountability Court under section 16-A, NAO, 1999. Similarly, the inquiry/investigation was also entrusted to the NAB on 07.10.2016. The probe conducted by the NAB Authorities revealed that the accused persons had embezzled an amount of Rs.45,09,62,910/-.
3. Arguments heard and record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned law of ficers appearing on behalf of NAB.
4. Precisely, the modus operandi adopted by the accused, for the embezzlement of the amount was to the effect that while posted in National Bank of Pakistan in different capacities, the accused persons used to make false entries in the scrolls and cashier's payments books through bogus and tampered pension payment vouchers.
They used to add one numeric before the actual amount in order to increase the amount. For example, a voucher of Rs.8214/- by adding a digit 5' is converted for an amount of Rs.58214/- Similarly, they were maintaining PPO for non-existent/ bogus pensioners and used to withdraw the amount fraudulently.
5. Since we intend to decide the requests for the grant of bail of four different accused persons, hence, it would be in the fitness of things to discuss the case of each individual separately .
6. The allegation against Nazar Abbas petitioner in W.P.No.1355 of 2017, as unfolded from para No.61 of the Investigation Report prepared by NAB Authorities is as under:- "He is one of the main accused in this scam and was posted as waterman/mali at main branch NBP Muzaf fargarh since 1999 till March, 2016. During his tenure an amount of Rs.420 million approx. was embezzled by him in connivance with others in pensions. Co-ac cused namely Saeed Ahmad has nomina ted his name attributed role and financial gain worth Rs.95 Million appox. in his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During his posting as waterman/ mali, he had facilitated the accused persons namely Muntazir Mehdi and Ghulam Shabbir by regularly posting the pensions vouchers in daily scrolls. He used to hand over the said scrolls along with vouchers to District Accounts Office, Muzaf fargarh on daily basis. Although he was a waterman/ mali but he had worked in the pensions on whole time basis. During the period of crime i.e. April, 2014 till March 2016, a number of properties worth Rs.40 million approx. are acquired / purchased by him in his name as well in the names of benamidars which are as follows:-
(a) 01 kanal 05 marla purchased by accused Nazar Abbas vide mutation No.6638 dated 30/05/2016 in Basti Bhattian Tehsil & District Muzafargarh near Mahmood Textile Mills.
(b) 27 kanal 01 marla land purchased by Mst. Shahnaz Nazar w/o Nazar Abbas vide mutation No.6455 dated 05/03/2015 in mouza Doaba Tehsil & District Muzaf fargarh.
(c) 200 kanal agricultural land in mouza khanpur Shumali Tehsil & District Muzaf fargarh purchased vide mutation No.10859 by accused Nazar Abbas.
(d) 7.15 marlas plot No.D-068 purchased by accused Nazar Abbas Mohana dated 22/08/2015 in Dream Gardens housing society Askari Bypass Multan.
(e) 9.22 marla plot No.CDA-233 purchased by Mst. Shahnaz Nazar w/o Nazar Abbas Mohana 22/06/2015 in Dream Gardens housing society Aksari Bypass Multan.
(f) 10 marla plot No.DCA-238 purchased by Mst. Shahnaz Nazar w/o Nazar Abbas Mohana dated 24/06/2015 in Dream Gardens housing society Askari Bypass Multan.
(g) 02 x 07 marla houses purchased by Mst. Shahnaz Nazar w/o Nazar Abbas Mohana in mouza Neel Kot Tehsil City and District Multan-Khan V illage.
(h) 03 marla area purchased by Mst. Shahnaz Nazar w/o Nazar Abbas Mohana in mouza Neel Kot Tehsil City and District Multan-Khan village vide mutation No.40823 dated 30/03/2016.
(i) 08 mala plot in Green Forts matti tal road Multan."
It evinces from the record that Nazar Abbas (petitioner) despite being a gardener was instrumental in the execution of this fraud. Though, he was a petty employee on daily wages basis in the National Bank Pakistan but on the basis of the unlawful gains, which he derived out of this scam, minted money like anything and was successful in acquiring assets to the tune of approximately forty million rupees. During the course of investigation, he miserably failed to reconcile these assets with his known source of income. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner made an effort to reconcile these assets and made reference to a payment received by the petitioner in lieu of a piece of land acquired by National Highway Authority. The perusal of the document reveals that an amount of Rs.1.000 Million was paid to him and that too in the year 2008. However, the assets acquired by him are much thereafter. As a matter of fact, based on the data collected by the NAB Authorities, most of the assets were purchased by the petitioner in the year 2015. It is important to mention here that the period during which he purchased these assets coincides with the period of embezzlement. More importantly, the petitioner stands fully implicated through the statement of Saeed (co- accused) recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Saeed has stated in unequivocal terms that the petitioner was instrumental in the execution of the fraud. Similarly, the wealth which he amassed gives a sufficient reflection of his involvement in the commission of crime.
7. Ghulam Yaseen (petitioner) in W .P.No.684 of 2017 stands arrested in the case with the following allegations:- "He was posted as Deputy Accountant in District Accounts Office, Muzaf fargarh since 15.05.2014 till 03.07.2015 during which an amount of Rs.263 Million approximately was embezzled by the accused persons. It was his duty to disburse actual money to actual pensioners but he has misused as well as willfully failed to exercise his authority .
His signatures are af fixed upon alleged cash book thereby an amount of Rs.9,17,01,128/ was embezzled."
It divulges from the record that Saeed Ahmad (co-accused), ascribed Ghulam Yaseen to be part of the bunch of the culprits, involved in the instant scam. According to his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., Ghulam Yaseen (petitioner) pocketed an amount of Rs.5.000 Million from the embezzled amount. It is important to mention here that the statement of Saeed Ahmad recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. is inculpatory in nature, hence, is sufficient material for the purposes of tentative assessment. Ghulam Yaseen in the days of occurrence was posted as pension payment cashier . Even otherwise, during the course of investigation, Ghulam Yaseen (petitioner) was found involved in the commission of offence. He also applied for Voluntary Return (VR) and showed his desire to return a substantial amount but since the same was found to be on much lower side than the amount embezzled by him, hence, this request was not accepted by the Chairman NAB. The fact that he shared an amount of Rs.5.000 Million from the misappropriated money suf ficiently connects him with the commission of of fence.
8. Ghulam Shabbir (petitioner) in W.P.No.3970 of 2017 was working as Head Cashier . The relevant extract of the investigation report pertaining to the petitioner is as under:- "That accused Ghulam Shabbir ex-Head Cashier was arrested after taking custody from District Jail Multan. During remand period accused deposed that he had placed some money including bonds and money worth Rs.76 lacs almost with his friend namely Khurrum Shahzad as an Amanat? in Gulshan e Hameed Colony, Muzaffargarh.
Therefore on the pointation of accused, undersigned along with Faisal Manzoor AD, Shehzad Ali 927/C, Ajmal Hussain 1184/C and accused Ghulam Shabbir leave for Muzaffargarh. Accused himself guided us the way and on his pointation we reached the spot i.e. house of said friend in Gulshan e Hameed Colony Muzaf fargarh. Khurum Shehzad has handed over the Prize Bonds worth Rs.5000/- notes which have been recovered vide Recovery Memo. Khurrum Shehzad deposed that accused Ghulam Shabbir has placed the bonds and cash as Amanat on approx. 29 March, 2016 with him. Said accused has deposed that following properties have been acquired by him through the crime proceeds obtained from this fraud as his share:-
(i) 06 M house purchased from Rana Talib worth Rs.36 lacs
(ii) 04 M house purchased from Peer Baksh worth Rs.18 lacs
(iii) 27 K agricultural land in Doaba worth Rs.35 lacs.
(iv) 2 K land in Basti Qazi worth Rs.6 lacs.
(v) 8 M plot in Mauza Taliti at Main Bye-pass worth Rs.2 lacs excluding Rs.7 lacs spent on construction.
(vi) 2 x plots in Dream Gardens Housing Society , Multan worth Rs.60 lacs.
(vii) 2 x shops in Mall of Multan worth Rs.65 lacs.
(viii) House agreed to purchase from Kaleem Nazami worth Rs.28 lacs.
(ix) Plot in W APDA Town Phase-III, Mutan
(x) Rs.16 lacs spent on house construction."
The tentative assessment of the material, so far collected during the course of investigation discloses that Ghulam Shabbiir (petitioner) was the main designe r and the central figure of this scandal. The assets acquired by him in no manner correspond with his known source of income. Even during the course of investigation, he led to the recovery of a cash amount of Rs.7.600 Million. The arguments of the learned counsel that the amount was planted by the NAB, Authorities, are preposterous in nature. It cannot be believed that NAB Officials, in order to grill an innocent person, will plant fake recovery of such a huge amount. The statement of Saeed Ahmad (co-accused) is enough to show that he was leading the bunch of the culprits, who were involved in plundering the pension accounts.
9. The above-mentioned material sufficiently reflects as to how the respective accused persons, played havoc with the public exchequer . The instant case, from its facts and circumstances, is the classic example as to how the element of corruption has penetrated deep in every segment of our national life. In order to get rid of the menace of corruption, a more practical and dynamic approach is required to cater with such like cases even at bail stage.th Since through these writ petitions, the relief of bail after arrest is being sought, hence, only a tentative assessment is to be made. Such an assessment fully connects the above-mentioned petitioners with the commission of offence. In this view of the matter, these petitions i.e. W.P.No.1355 of 2017, W.P.No.684 of 2017 and W.P.No.3970 of 2017 merit no acceptance and are dismissed.
10. Rab Nawaz (Petitioner) in W.P.No.15233 of 2016 is in incarceration since 07.08.2016. The perusal of the Investigation Report shows that the role of Rab Nawaz (petitioner) is highlighted as under:- "He was posted as Pension Passing Officer since 24.10.2014 till 22.03.2016 during which an amount of Rs.374 Million approx. was embezzled by the accused persons. It was his duty to pass the pensions after a detailed procedure of verification but he had misused as well as willfully failed to exercise his authority . His signatures are affixed upon alleged payment vouchers worth Rs.6,72,99,352/- and upon alleged scrolls worth Rs.24,98,88,739."
The perusal of the record shows that in the initial probe conducted by the FIA Authorities, he was not found involved in the commission of offence. For this reason, his name is not mentioned in FIR No.10/2016 registered at FIA CBC Multan. Similarly , Saeed Ahmad (co-accused) has also not implicated him in his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Even during the course of investigation, no traces of any monetary gain were detected either from the perusal of his bank statement or from his assets. On court?s query , the learned Prosecutor NAB candidly stated that no clue of any financial gain came on record during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the reply of the petitioner, which he submitted before the inquiry officer during departmental proceedings and is placed as Annexure-C of the instant petition. It evinces from his reply that he detected this scam on 21.03.2016, when he noticed pension voucher for an amount of Rs.5540/- to have been tampered as Rs.55540/?. Similarly, he also detected two other similar vouchers wherein the actual amount was enhanced through tampering. According to his reply, the matter was brought to the notice of Operation Manager as well as the then Area Manager who tried to hush up the matter by returning the amount through two recovery challan slips. It is important to mention here that it divulges from his said statement that he annexed the copies of both these two challan slips with his reply.
Petitioner (Rab Nawaz) is charged with section 9 (vi) of National Accounta bility Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as NAO,1999 ). The foregoing provision pertains to misuse of authority by a holder of public office. The simple perusal of section 9 (vi) of NAO, 1999 reveals that simple misuse of authority is not made culpable in order to attract the mischief of the foregoing provision. The misuse of authority must be coupled with some financial gain or benefit. In the instant case no such material has come on record, which may suggest even remotely that the petitioner derived any monetary or financial gain out of this transaction.
Since by virtue of section 9 (b) of NAO, 1999, the concession of bail has been withheld by the legislatures, hence, no specific criteria or guidelines are laid down in the statute. However , the definition of "Accused" as mentioned in section 5(a) of NAO, 1999 reveals that accused means and includes 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 NAO, 1999. As a necessary corollary the question arises as to how the expression "reasonable grounds" can be defined. "Reasonable grounds" is a word of higher import from mere doubt or suspicion. The doubts or suspicions howsoever strong cannot replace the reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" stands at much higher pedestal than mere doubt or suspicion. The existence of reasonable grounds, within the meaning of section 5 (a) of NAO, 1999 have to be demonstrated by the prosecution on the basis of evidence collected till then. If such grounds are found in existence, to connect an accused with the commission of crime, it will render the person seeking bail, disentitled from such concession. However, if it is found that sufficient material to connect the accused with the commission of crime is lacking, a person can be extended the concession of bail. In the instant case, from the cards displayed by the prosecution sufficient material does not exist to make out reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is connected with the commission of crime. As regards disputed vouchers, suffice it to say that since they are already in the possession of NAB, hence, no apprehension of tampering with the same. It will be important to mention here that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from his co-accused who are not considered entitled from the concession of bail as all of them also found guilty of unlawful financial gain out of this transaction.
Such aspect of the matter makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt. Though the Prosecutor NAB has made reference to certain vouchers alleged to have been signed by the petitioner but in support of this allegation, no report of any Handwriting Exert is placed on record. Even, while exercising powers under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, we have made an endeavour to compare his signatures available on the vouchers with the one affixed on the power of attorney annexed with the instant bail application and have found no similarity . In these circumstances, we have no other option but to extend him the benefit of concession of bail after arrest. Conseque ntly, W.P.No.15233 of 2016 filed by Rab Nawaz (petitioner) is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one million with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.