JUDGMENT:- Succinctly, facts of the case are that the Acting Chairman. NAB delegated the powers to authorize an inquiry on the subject matter to the Director General NAB, Rawalpindi vide letter dated July 15, 2022. The Director General NAB, Rawalpindi authorized the inquiry on the same date. Subsequently, on April 20. 2023, the Chairman NAB upgraded the inquiry into the investigation.
2. During the course of investigation, it transpired that on December 2, 2019, accused Mirza Shahzad Ahmed presented a note to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, which revealed that on the application by the National Crime Agency. (NCA), UK, an account freezing order (AFO) was passed by the District Judge at Westminster Magisterial Court under Section 30323 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, on 14 December 2018. The said AFO pertained to 20 million (GBP) approximately owned by the Malik Riaz Family, On 12 August 2019, the NCA obtained further eight AFOs with relation to 119,7 million (GBP) held in the accounts of members the Malik Riaz Family. The NCA's investigation also included 1 Hyde Park Place, London, a prime London property valued at approximately 50 million (GBP). The combined total value thus was amounting to 190 million (GBP).
3. In April 2019, Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. extended illegal monetary benefit to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the then Prime Minister in the shape of land measuring 458 Kanals 04 Marlas 58 sq.ft., through (marfat) the accused Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (PO), under the garb of donation to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust for which the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi was the senior/founder and the accused Bushra Imran Khan was the trustee. It is evident that when the said monetary benefit was extended to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, neither the trust nor the university was in existence. In return, the accused Malik Riaz Hussain became the sole beneficiary of the amount 171.159 million out of total 190 million (GBP) repatriated so far, meant to be returned to the State of Pakistan,
4. In order to give a cover to the dishonest and malicious adjustment of the amount 171,159 million
(GBP) against the amount owed by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain, and the Illegal extension of the monetary benefit to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar, in connivance with and active knowledge of the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, with malafide floated to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, a note dated 2.12.2019 which contained misrepresented and twisted information, implying that the funds frozen In the UK were to be surrendered to Pakistan against a non-existent liability, mischaracterizing a land purchase agreement as a fine, and knowingly misrepresented that an account in the Supreme Court of Pakistan was being operated for the benefit of the State of Pakistan, Accused Imran Ahmed Islamabad Khan Niazi, the then Prime Minister, approved the note in violation of the Rules of Business, 1973, On December 3, 2019, the note was subsequently presented in an in-camera Cabinet Meeting, leading to the Cabinet's approval of paragraph 10 of the note and the sealing of the document based on the Cabinet's decision. Accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar, in connivance with accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the then Prime Minister, had already dishonestly and for ulterior motives signed and submitted a Deed of Confidentiality to the NCR (UK) on behalf of the Government of Pakistan on November 6, 2019, prior to the Cabinet Meeting of December 3, 2019.
Accused Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim also dishonestly signed the Confidentiality Deed as a witness. The designated account mentioned in the Deed of Confidentiality was the account of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, with IBAN no. PK20NBPA0474004151238163, intended for the payment of land owned by the Bahria Town Limited Karachi, as per the Supreme Court's decision.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, vide judgment dated 04.05.2018 passed in the CMA No.376-K of 2014 in VAC No.16 of 2011, held that the grant of land by the Sindh Board of Revenue (SBR) to the Malir Development Authority (MDA), and the MDA 's subsequent exchange of the land with the Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited were all illegal and a result of collusion amongst all the stakeholders.
Subsequently, as per the order dated 21.03.2019 passed in the Civil Misc., Application No.8758 of 2018 in the Civil Misc. Application No.376-K of 2014, the Barrie Town (Pvt) Ltd agreed to pay a total sum of Rs,460 billion (rupees four hundred and sixty billion) for the said land. Consequently, the funds from the foreign bank accounts, previously frozen through the AFOs by the NCA, were repatriated to this account before the Cabinet Meeting on December 3, 2019, instead of getting repatriated to the State or Pakistan.
5. Record further reveals that land measuring 458 kanals 4 marlas 58 Sq.ft against the price of Rs.
66050000f- was transferred in the month of April 2019 to the non-existent the Al-Qadir University Project Trust through (marfat) Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari accused by accused Malik Riaz Hussain.
6. The investigation also revealed that the land initially transferred to the Al-Qadir University Trust through the accused Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari in April 2019 was later on transferred to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust through attorney Talib Hussain on January 22, 2021. As per the transfer, the land was purchased by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd and was temporarily donated in the name of the transferor, who held it as a custodian for the proposed trust, which did not exist at that time.
7. As a result of the undue favor extended to him by the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, in addition to the transfer of land, accused Malik Riaz Hussain the CEO Director Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd., also transferred an amount of Rs, 285,000,000 into the accounts of the Al.Qadir University Project Trust Furthermore, he also financed the construction of the building of AI-Qadir University Project 'Trust, assessed at a value of Rs. 284,032,000, Additionally, he provided various items, including furniture and fixtures worth Rs, 5,149,000, and computers etc valued Rs. 648,500 to the same trust.
8. The investigation further disclosed that the allocation of land for the Al-Oadir Trust, along with the promise to construct a university, was made in a quid pro quo arrangement, allowing the adjustment of amount 171,159 million (GOP) against the amount owed by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain. To obscure the personal benefit to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, a trust arrangement was made.
9. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, played a pivotal role in the illegal transfer of funds meant for the State of Pakistan, into an account designated for the payment of land by the Bahria Town, Karachi, in the name of Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, ultimately benefiting accused Malik Riaz Hussain. He chaired the Cabinet Meeting on 03.12.2019, during which the Deed of Confidentiality was presented and subsequently approved for signing by accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar. It is evident that he, in connivance with accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar and other co-accused, misled the Cabinet regarding the prior signing of the Confidentiality Deed and failed to disclose that the funds had already been repatriated and diverted for the payment of land by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain, thereby benefiting him, instead of the State of Pakistan. In this way, instead of getting transferred the said amount to the State of Pakistan, accused Malik Riaz Hussain became the sole beneficiary of the entire repatriated amount, Furthermore, few witnesses revealed that when discussion in the agenda was started by the members, accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, chairing the Cabinet Meeting, intervened to grant approval without further discussion upon which the agenda was approved without deliberation owing to the alleged confidentiality of the matter. In exchange for illegal favors extended to the accused Malik Riaz Hussain and Bahria Town, under the guise of Al-Qadir University Project, Trust, accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi Obtained material monetary gains, including a so-called donation of approximately 458 kanals of land, funds amounting to Rs. 285 million in-kind contributions to the Al Qadir University Project Trust and 240 kanals of land in Mouza Mohra Noor, Islamabad through front person, accused Farhat Shehzadi. Therefore, the accused Imran Ahmed Khan committed the offences of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section 9(a)(ii)
(iv)(vi)and(xii)of the NAO, 1999 punishable under section 10 of the Ordinance ibid and Sr. No 2 of the schedule thereto, making him liable for prosecution.
10. Accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar, the former Chairman ARU and Special Assistant to the Prime Minister (SAPM), played a crucial role, in connivance with accused Iman Ahmed Khan Niazi, in the illegal transfer of the funds, intended for the State of Pakistan, into an account designated for the payment of land by Bahria Town, Karachi, in the name of Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, ultimately benefiting accused Malik Riaz Hussain He. in connivance with accused Imran Ahmed Khan and prior to the approval of the Cabinet, dishonestly signed the Confidentiality Deed on 06.11.2019 whereby he with malafide intimated about the account to the NCA meant for Bahria Town's liability as the "Designated Account," falsely representing it as the State of Pakistan's account. Furthermore, he, in connivance and with active knowledge of accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, with malamute floated to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niaz, a note dated 2.12.2019. On December 3, 2019, when the note, along with the unsigned Deed of Confidentiality was presented in an in-camera Cabinet Meeting, he and accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi intentionally and with malafide concealed the fact that the Confidentiality Deed had already been signed by the accused on 06.11.2019 and submitted to the NCR. He, in his capacity as the Chairman ARU, was the most important individual responsible for effecting recovery of the unlawful assets abroad and negotiating with the foreign governments, including the NCA (UK). His frequent visits to the UK and meetings with the NCA officials underscore his active involvement. Notably, none of the representatives from FBR, NAB, RA, and state Bank of Pakistan, who were members of the ARU, were kept informed or taken on board in the repatriation of funds Into the account meant for the Bahria Town's land payment, instead of the State of Pakistan. It is further revealed from the record that the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar deliberately did not requisition the other designated members from the concerned departments as mandated by the TORS of the formation of the ARU to fulfill his ulterior motives during the period 2018 to 2019. This resulted in a colossal losses to the National Exchequer amounting to 190 million (GBP), for which he is individually and jointly liable.
11. Accused Malik Riaz Hussain, in his capacity as the CEO/Director of the Bahria Town (Private)
Limited, actively aided, abetted, assisted and acted in connivance with the co-accused for the diversion of funds earmarked for the State of Pakistan into a bank account designated for the payment by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. Karachi's Rs. 460 billion agreed liability. This manoeuvring resulted in a substantial loss of 190 million (GBP) to the National Exchequer, He, being beneficiary of the illegal repatriation of funds from the UK and the subsequent adjustment of these funds into his account maintained by the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan, and to reciprocate for the said unlawful favour extended by accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, gave material monetary benefits, including the transfer of land, funds amounting to approximately Rs, 265 million, and in-kind contributions to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, under the garb of donations to the Al Qadir University Project Trust.
12. The accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, who served as an Expert on International Criminal Laws in the ARU, played a significant role in aiding, abetting and assisting accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar and acted in conspiracy with the other co-accused in handling or the matter and negotiations with the UK Government and the NCA. His multiple visits to the UK alongside co-accused Shahzad Akbar to engage with the NCA, demonstrated his deep involvement in the proceedings. Accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim's knowledge of the correspondences between the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar and the NCA, as well as his signing of the Confidentiality Deed as a witness on November 6, 2019, without authority, prior to the Cabinet meeting on December 3, 2019, contributed to the diversion of funds from their intended purpose. This diversion resulted into a significant loss of 190 million
(GBP) to the National Exchequer, for which he is individually and jointly liable. Despite being called for investigation, he did not participate and remained at large, failing to provide a plausible defense.
13. The accused Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhara, who served as a trustee of the Al-Qadir Trust from December 26, 2019 to April 2020, played a vital role in aiding abetting and assisting the commission of the offense. He ostensibly held land measuring 458 kanals 04 marlas 58 sq.ft. through ten mutations, which had been purchased by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain of the Bahria Town for the Al-Qadir Trust even before the trust's formal creation. This arrangement effectively made him a front man for the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the former Prime Minister During the same period, when the land was being transferred to the name of Al-Qadir Trust through accused Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari, illegal favours were being extended to the accused Malik Raz Hussain by accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and accused Mirza Shahzad Mbar old, Additionally, he was present during the Cabinet meeting that approved the transfer of State funds into the account for Bahria Town Pvt. Limited's liability.
14. The accused Bushra Imran Khan, a trustee of the Al Qadir University Project Trust since its inception, alongside her husband accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, played a significant role in the illegal transactions. There is substantial incriminating evidence on record indicating that the donation made to the trust by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain and Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited, actually constitutes an illegal personal gain extended to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi in exchange for his favours extended to the accused Malik Riaz Hussain. She, as the spouse of accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, acknowledged the receipt of property, pecuniary benefits, and other valuable items from accused Malik Riaz Hussain, through Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited.
Moreover, she aided and abetted in the commission of the offense by signing the "Acknowledgement of Donation" deed dated March 24, 2021. She is also co-signatory to the Al- Qadir University Project Trust's account maintained at HBL Civic Centre branch in Islamabad.
Sufficient pieces of incriminating material are available on record, establishing her involvement in commission of alleged offences.
15. The accused Ahmed Ali Riaz, who held the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Director Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited from 2008 to 2015, played a significant role in the illegal transactions. He was the account holder of various bank accounts frozen in the UK. Substantial incriminating material is available on record demonstrating that the he aided and abetted accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, accused Mirza. Shahzad Akbar, and his father accused Malik Riaz Hussain in the illegal diversion of funds intended for the State of Pakistan into a bank account opened to deposit the payment for the land of Bahria Town, Karachi. Additionally, the accused Ahmed Ali Riaz, transferred 240 kanals 6 marla land in the name of accused Farhat shahzadi, a trustee of the Al- Qadir university project trust and a front person for the accused Imran Ahmed, khan Niazi and Bushra Imran khan. This land was transferred through the three mutations but no evidence of any consideration is available on record to establish it as a genuine transaction. Substantial proof is available on record establishing the involvement of accused Ahmed Ali Riaz in committing offenses of corruption practices.
16. The accused Farhat shazadi played a vital role as a front person for accused Imran Ahmed khan Niazi and Bushra Imran khan. She was made a trustee of the Al-Qadir University project Trust on 22-Jan-2022 and her association with accused Bushra Imran khan is well-established. During the investigation it transferred that shortly before becoming a trustee of Al-Qadir university Project Trust, a total of 240 kanals 6 marls land was transferred In her name through the three mutations by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited, aided and abetted by the accused Ahmed Ali Raiz without any consideration. This transaction indicates that this valuable land was also part of the monetary gain, provided by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his spouse Bushra Imran Khan In exchange for illegal favour extended to him Substantial proof available on record suggests her Involvement in committing the offenses of corruption and corrupt practices.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 23-Nov-2023 in CMA No 8758/2018 in CMA No, 376-K/2014 etc. directed that the fund received from UK be remitted to Government of Pakistan. The Hon'ble Court used the idiom "robbing peter to pay paul" confirming thereby that the amount frozen by the NCA could not be adjusted against the payment of the price of land by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited.
18. The accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar, Malik Riaz Hussain, Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, Eyed Zulfiqar Abbas bukhari Ahmed Ali Riaz, and Farhat Shahzadi were declared proclaimed offenders (PO) when they concealed themselves and avoided to appear before the Court in order to face the Court proceedings. The case proceeded against only two accused namely Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran, After delivering the copies of documents as required u/s 265-C Cr.P.C on 03.01.2024 to the accused Iman Ahmed Khan Niazi and on 09.01.2024 to the accused Bushra Imran, both the accused were formally charge sheeted on 27.02.2024 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, hence, the prosecution evidence was summoned. In prosecution evidence as many as 35x witnesses were got recorded by the prosecution, the resume of which is as under.- PW-01 Syed Ansar Hussain Deputy Director (SBP) Karachi. He being Deputy Director State Bank of Pakistan Karachi deposed that on 27 June 2023, he appeared before the I.O. Mian Umar Nadeem at NAB office situated at Sector G-6 Civic Center Islamabad in case against Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan regarding illegal transfer of 190 Pounds from UK to Pakistan. The State Bank of Pakistan was never consulted in the matter of transfer of the funds from UK to Pakistan. He produced original authority letter dated 26.6.2023 Exh.PW-1/1 (page 251 vol-1), and he also produced original letter of the State Bank of Pakistan dated 23.5.2023 Exh.PW-1/2 (page 252 vol-1). I.O seized these documents through seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-1/3 (page 250 vol-1), I.O recorded his statement.
PW-02 Ali Shahid Director Spokesperson MOFA. He being representative of Ministry of Foreign Affairs., Islamabad deposed that on 16 June, 2023, he appeared before Main Umer Nadeem Deputy Director who visited his office connection with case against Imran Ahmed khan Niazi Ex-prime Minister of Pakistan regarding illegal transfer of 190 Million British Pounds. He seized the record which consisted of an email' dated 1st July 2022 from National Crime Agency UK Email; icu@nca.gov.uk addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs official email addresses, fso@mofa.gov.pk. and fso1@mofa.gov.pk. The email included attachment, namely Deed of Confidentiality and two schedules i.e.
1. Computer generated email dated 1.7.2022 same is Exh.PW-2/1(page 402 vol-2), (under objection by Defence Counsel)
2. Attachment namely Government of Pakistan a Deed of confidentiality alongwith schedules, dated 06.11.2019 same is Exh.PW-2/2 (page 403 to 411, vol-2) (under objection by Defence counsel)
I.O seized these documents through a seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-2/3 (page 401 vol-2). The Deed of Confidentiality was signed and delivered by Mirza Shahzad Akbar accused (PO) witnessed by Zia Nasim accused (PO) on 06.11.2019. As per the record, no consultation was made with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the High Commission of Pakistan in the UK on the subject matter. I.O also recorded his statement.
PW-03 Jamil Ahmed Section Officer Cabinet Division. He being Section Officer Cabinet Division.
Islamabed deposed that on 16.6.2023, the NAB investigating Officer Mian Umer Nadeem visited his office in the Cabinet Division and seized the relevant documents through a seizure memo and he signed the seizure Memo in presence of witnesses, His signature thereon is Exh.PW-3/1 (page 261 voI-2). He produced the produced the following documents;
1. Certified true copy (CTC) of decision of Cabinet meeting on 5.9.2018, same is Exh.PW-3/2(page 264 vol-2) (OSR) along with CTC of memorandum dated 10.09.2018, same is Exh.PW-3/3 (page 262 & 263) (OSR).
2. CTC of list of invitees of Cabinet Meeting held on 5.09.2018, same is Exh.PW-3/4 (page 265 to 268 vol-2) (OSR).
3. Attested copy of notification dated 19.9.2018 same is Exh.PW-3/5 (page 269 vol-2) (Office copy is seen and returned).
4. Attested copy of notification dated 6.11.2018, same is Exh.PW-3/6 (page 270 to 272 vol-2) (OSR).
5. CTC of agenda of Cabinet Meeting issued on 29.11,2019, same is Exh.PW-3/7 (page 273 to 276 vol- 2) (OSR).
6. CTC of agenda of Cabinet Meeting issued on 02.12.2019, same is Exh.PW-3/8 (page 277 to 279 vol- 2) (OSR).
7. CTC of note for the Prime Minister dated 02.12.2019 alongwith unsigned confidentiality deed, same is Exh.PW-3/9 (page 280 to 289 vol-2) (OSR).
8. CTC of Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet held on 3 12.2019 alongwith memorandum issued on 6 12.2019, same is Exh.PW-3/10 (page 289A to 317 vol-2) (OSR).
9. CTC of list of invitees of Cabinet Meeting held on 3.12.2019, same is Exh.PW-3/11 (page 318 to 323 vol-2) (OSR).
10. CTC of notification dated. 8.6.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/12 (page 324 vel-2) (OSR).
11. CTC of Minutes of Cabinet sub-committee Meeting dated 9.6.2022 alongwith list of attendees, same is Exh.PW.3/13 (page 325 to 327 vol-2) (OSR).
12. Attested copy of agenda of Cabinet Meeting dated 14.6.2022k same is Exh-PW-3/14 (page 328 vol-2) (OSR).
13. CTC of memorandum issued on 22.6.2022, same is Exh-PW-3/15 (page 329 & 330 vol-2) (OSR) alongwith CTC of Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet held on 14.8.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/16 (page 331 to 335 vol-2) (OSR).
14. CTC of list of invitees of Cabinet Meeting held on 14.6.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/17 (page 336 to 340 vol-2) (OSR).
15. CTC of Minutes of Cabinet sub-committee Meeting dated 14.6.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/18 (page 341 to 343 vol-2) (OSR).
16. CTC of notification dated 24.6.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/19 (page 344 vol-2) (OSR).
17. CTC of Minutes of Cabinet Sub-Committee Meeting dated 30.6.2022, same is Exh.PW. 320 (page 345 to 348 vol-2) (OSR).
18. CTC of Minutes of Cabinet Sub-Committee Meeting dated 04.07.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/21 (page 349 to 352 vol-2) (OSR).
19. CTC of Minutes of Cabinet Sub-Committee Meeting dated 25.07.2022, same is Exh.PW- 3/22 (page 353 to 361 vol-2) (OSR).
20. CTC of summary for the Cabinet dated 12.8.2022, same is Exh.PW-3/23 (page 362 & 363 vol-2)
(OSR)
21. CTC of report on the committee of the Cabinet on Account Freezing orders, same is Exh-PW- 3/24 (page 364 to 367) (OSR) alongwith annexures from annexure-I to annexure-VII) same is Mark PW-3/A (page 366 to 399 vol-2).
The I.O seized certain documents from Mr. Saad Munir and he signed the seizure memo as a witness. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-3/25 (Page 416 vol-2).
On 18.10.2023, he appeared before the I.O Mian Umer Nadeem at NAB Rawalpindi and produced relevant record which was seized by I.O through the seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-3/26 (page 254 vol2). He produced the following documents;
1. CTC of memorandum letter dated 19.9.2018 same is Exh.PW-3/27 (page 255 & 256 vol-2) (OSR).
2. CTC of Minutes of Cabinet Meeting dated 13.9.2018, same is Exh.PW-3/28 (page 257 vol-2) (OSR).
3. CTC of notification deed 19.9.2018, same is Exh.PW- 3/29 (page 258 vol-2) (OSR), The I.O visited his office on 22.11.2023 and seized certain record from his colleague namely Mr. Muhammad Jamal and he signed the seizure memo as a witness. His signature thereon is Exh.PW- 3/30 (page 2366 vol-8).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-04 Mohsin Aman Deputy Secretary ARU. This witness being Deputy Secretary ARU deposed that on 27 June 2023, he appeared before investigating Officer Mian Umer Nadeem at NAB Office situated at G.6 Islamabad. Ho appeared to present tine record related to investigation against Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan in 190 million pounds case. He produced the relevant record in presence of witnesses and signed the seizure memo on which, his signatures are Exh.PW-4/1 (page 8 vol-1). The I.O seized the record in presence of witnesses. He produced the following record:-
1. Original letter dated 31.5.2023 addressed to the NAB, same is Exh.PW-4/2 (page 9 & 10 vol-1)
2. CTC of Minutes of Meeting of Federal Cabinet held on 5.9.2018, already Exhibited as PW-3/2 (page 264 vol-2),
3. CTC or Minutes of Meeting of Federal Cabinet held on 13.9.2018, already Exhibited as PW-3/28 (page 257 vol-2)
4. Computer generated budget allocated expenditures Incurred by ARU since inception same is Exh.PW-4/3 (page 15 to 17 vol-1) (under objection).
5. CTC of letter dated 20.1.2020 bearing subject provision of information on taxation/succession/revenue receipt alongwith press release, same is Exh.PW-4/4 (page 18 & 19)
(office copy is seen and returned) (under objection as the same is not the office copy as the same does not bear the words office copy).
6. CTC of complete file of note sheets, correspondence regarding repatriation of 190 million Pounds, same is Exh.PW-4/5 (page 20 to 199 excluding pages 57, 58, 65, 66, 71 to 75, 80, 88, 139 to 141, 145, 154, 155, 157 to 163, 170, 172, and175).
7. CTC of letter dated 19.11.2018, same is Exh.PW-4/6 (page 200 vol-1)(office copy is seen and returned)(under objection).
8. CTC of letter dated 26.11.2018, same is Exh.PW-4/7 (page 201 vol-1)(office copy is seen and returned) (under objection).
9. CTC of letter dated 18.4.2019, same is Exh.PW-4/8 (page 202 & 203 vol-1) (office copy is seen and returned)(under objection).
10. Copy of charter of duties of accused Shahzad Akbar already exhibited as PW-3/6 (page 270 to 272 vol-2).
11. CTC of charter of duties of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, same is Exh.PW-4/9 (page 207 & 208 vol-1)(office copy is seen and returned) (under objection).
12. Copy of computer generated details of officers/officials of ARU who dealt with the subject case, some is Exh.PW-4/10 (page 209 & 210 vol-1) (original computer generated is seen and returned under objection).
13. Copy of list of invitees for The Cabinet Meeting held on 3.12.2019 already Exhibited as PW-3/11 (page 318 to 323 vol-2).
14. Original letter dated 20.6.2023 of myself addressed to Deputy Director NAB, same is Exh.PW-4/11 (page 217 vol-1)
15. CTC of covering letter of charge assumption of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, same is Exh.PW- 4/12 (page 218 vol-1) (office copy is seen and returned).
16. CTC of charge assumption of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, same is Exh.PW-4/13 (page 219 vol- 1) (OSR).
17. Copy of covering letter of termination of the contract of Banister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, same is Mark PW-4/A (page 220 vol-1).
18. Copy of notification dated 27.10.2022 regarding termination of contract of accused Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, same is Exh.PW-4/14 (page 221 vol-1) (office copy is seen and returned) (under objection as the same is not the office copy as the same does not bear the words office copy),
19. Copy of functions/duties of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, same is Exh.PW-4/15 (page 222 to 227 vol-1) (office copy is seen and returned) (under objection).
20. Copy of letter dated 27.12.2019 written by Barrister Zia of Mustafa Nasim regarding file opening and possession, same is Exh PW-4/16 (page 230 231 vol-1) (OSR),
21. Annual performance and evaluation report of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim for the period 18.
1.2019 to 31.12.2019, same is Exh.Pw-4/17 (page 232 to 235 vol -1) (OSR).
22. Annual performance and evaluation report of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim for the period 01.01.2020 to 31.12 2020, same is Exh.PW-4/18 (page 236 to 239 vol-1) (OSR).
I.O recorded his statement."
PW-05 Muhammad zahid CFO Al-Qadir University Project Trust. He deposed that he appeared on 23.52023 as CFO AI-Qadir University Project Trust in NAB Rawalpindi before the I.O Mian (Umer Nadeem in relation to investigation against Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and others regarding misuse of authority for of 190 million pounds for personal gain. The Al-Qadir University Trust was registered on 26.12.2019 at Joint Sub-Registerar Office Islamabad and he was asked to produce the documents which were available on his record. The Al-Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust was registered on 14.3.2022 at Sub-Registrar Office Sohawa, Jhelum. The donation in shape of cash was Rs. 285 million rupees from Bahria Town Pvt Ltd. to Al-Qadir University Trust and donation in kind was amounting to Rs. 450 million i.e. land, building, furniture and fixtures. The I.O seized certain record from him presence of witnesses and he signed the seizure Memo and his signature thereon is Exh.PW-5/1 (page 1474 vol-5). He produced the following record:-
1. CTC of office copy of meeting of AI-Qadir Trust same is Mark PW-5/A (page 1475 vol-5).
2. CTC of office copies of Trust deeds dated 26.12.2019 of Al-Qadir University Project Trust, same is Mark PW-5/B (page 1476 to 1487vol-5).
3. CTC of Trust Deeds of Endowment Fund for Al-Qadir Institute, same is Exh.PW-5/2 (page 1488 to 1507 vol.5) (OSR).
4. CTC of amendments of the Trust Deeds, same is Exh.PW-5/3 (page 1508 to 1524 vol-5) (OSR).
5. Computer generated details of trustees of Al-Qadir University Project Trust and Al-Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust, same is Exh.PW-5/4 (page 1525 vol-5)
6. Copy of acknowledgment of donations made between Bahria Town Pvt Ltd and Mst. Bushra Khan same Exh.PW-5/5 (original available at pages 244 to 248A vol-1).
7. CTC of 0ffiCe copy of Registration Certificate in Punjab Charity Commission, same is Exh.PW.5/6 (page 1531 vol-5) (computer generated Registration Certificate is soon and returned) (under objection).
8. Copies of land transfer deeds, non-encumbrance certificate etc are available at pages 1532 to 1572 vol-5).
9. CTC of &fails of donations by the Bahria Town Pvt Ltd alongwith CTC of relevant notes to the audited accounts, same is Ext., PW-5/7 (page 1573 to 1589 vol.5) (CSR).
10. Copy of computer generated details of Academic Programs, affiliation letters, same is Exh.PW- 5/8 (page 1590 to 1593 vol-5).
11. Copy of computer generated details of bank accounts and signatories of Al-Qadir University Project Trust and Al-Qadir University Project Endowment Funds Trust, same is Ex.PW5/9 (page 1594 vol-5) (computer generated details of bank accounts and signatories are seen and returned).
12. CTC of evaluation report of land building and equipment, same is Exh.PW-5/10 (page 1595 to 1609 (OSR).
He again appeared before the I.O on 27.9.2023 in the same case and produced the following record which was seized by the I.O through seizure memo in presence of witnesses, which bears his signature. His Signature thereon is Exh.PW-5/11 (page 1611 vol-5) and CTC of Board Resolution of Al- Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust am Exh.PW-5/12 (page 1612 to 1617 vol-5) (OSR).
He again appeared before the I.O on 29.11.2023 in the same case and produced the original Donation Acknowledgment Deed already Exhibited as PW-5/5 (page 244 to 248A vol-1). I.O seized this original Donation Acknowledgment Deed through seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature is Exh.PW-5/13 (page 243 vol-1). This deed was signed by Brig, Jamil Sarwar Malik on behalf of Bahria Town Pvt Ltd and Mst. Bushra Bibi on behalf of Ai-Qadir University Project Trust and this witness also signed this deed as witness, which bears his signature as Exh.PW-5/5-1 (page 248A vol-1) as witness. I.O recorded his statements."
PW-06 Feroz Khan Deputy Secretary (ORG) Cabinet Division. He being Deputy Secretary Cabinet deposed that on 18.10.2023, he appeared before the I.O NAB namely Mian Umar Nadeem in connection with case against Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, regarding 190 million Pounds. He produced letter dated 14.9.2023, same is Exh. PW-6/1 (page 526 vol-3) (OSR) and original report of the Inquiry Committee on Assets Recovery Unit (ARU). Status and record alongwith its annexures, is Exh.PW-5/2 (page 527 to 659 vol-3). inquiry Committee which consisted Mst. Humaira Azam Khan, Senior Joint Secretary as its Chairperson, M. Akram Joint Secretary and he himself Feroz Khan, inquiry Committee concluded that Mr. Shahzad Akbar Former SAPM Advisor on Accountability and interior alongwith two experts namely Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim expert on international Criminal Law and Mr. Imran Iqbal Panjwani expert on Forensic and Anti-Money Laundering were found responsible for missing record from the ARU. The I.O seized the record through seizure memo which bears his signature, in presence of witnesses. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-6/3 (page 525 vol-3).
PW-07 Muhammad Abbas Section Officer Ministry of Law and Justice. He being Section Officer Ministry of Law and Justice deposed that he appeared before Mian Umar Nadeem I.O NAB at NAB Office G-6 Islamabad regarding the investigation into the transfer of 190 minion Pounds against former Prime Minister Imran Ahmed khan Niazi. He produced CTC of latter dated 15.3.2023 Exh.PW- 7/1 (page 522 vol-2)(OSR) which was seized by the I.O through a seizure memo which bears his signature Exh.PW.7/2 (page 521 vol-2)Ministry of Law and Justice performs its functions as per Rules of Business 1973. His Section deals with vetting/opinion of legal instruments in this matter, no vetting/opinion was sought from the Ministry of Law and Justice regarding the repatriation of 190 million Pounds from UK to Pakistan. No Deed of Confidentiality and any other instrument/document was received in the Ministry of Law and Justice for vetting/opinion. I.O recorded his statement.
PW-08 Muhammad Saad Munir Section Officer (MIN-1) Cabinet Division. He deposed that on 16.6.2023, Mr. Mian Umer Nadeem I.O NAB visited his office and seized the relevant record including notification of Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, SAPM Advisors etc. He signed the seizure memo in the presence of witnesses. His signature thereon is Exh.PW.8/1 (page 416 Vol-2). The following documents were seized from me.
1. CTC of notification dated 18.8.2018, same is Exh.PW-8/2 (page 417 Vol-2) (OSR).
2. CTC of notification dated 10.4.2022, same is Exh.PW-8/3 (page 418 Vol-2) (OSR).
3. CTC of notification dated 20.8.2018, same is Exh.PW-8/4 (page 419 Vol-2) (OSR).
4. CTC of notification dated 22.7.2020, same is Exh.PW-8/5 (page 420 Vol-2) (OSR).
5. Attested copy of charge relinquishment report Mr. Shahzad Akbar dated 22.7.2020, same is Exh.PW-8/5 (page 421 Vol-2) (0SR).
6. CTC of notification dated 26.1.2022, same is Exh.PW- 8/7 (page 422 Vol.2) (OSR).
7. CTC of notification dated 17.9.2018 same is Exh.PW-8/8 (page 423 vol.2) (OSR).
8. Attested copy of notification dated 27.5.2021, same is Exh.PW-8/9 (page 424 Vol.2) (original office copy is seen and returned).
9. CTC of notification dated 20.8.206, same is Exh.PW-8/10 (Page 425 Vol-2) (OSR).
10. CTC of notification dated 03.4.2022, same is Mark PW-8A (page 426 Vol.2).
11. Attested copy of computer generated complete Federal Ministers/Ministers for State and Advisors/SAPMs under the premiership of Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi same is Exh.PW-8/11 (page 427 to 430 vol-2) (OSR). (under objection as the document is not authored by any official).
12. Attested copy of computer generated complete details/notification/charge assumption report, charge relinquishment report tenure W, portfolio etc of the Cabinet Committee Members who attended the Cabinet Meeting dated 3.12.2019, same is Exh.PW-8/12 (page 431 to 433 Vol-2) (OSR) alongwith CTC of notifications, charge assumption/relinquish reports etc, same is Exh.PW-8/13 (page 434 to 502 Vol-2) (OSR).
On the same date, I.O also seized the record from Mr. Jamil Ahmed through seizure memo which bears his signature as a witness. His signature thereon is Exh.PW8/14 (page 261 Vol-2).
Thereafter, he again appeared before the I.O on 18.10.2023 in the NAB office where ire produced document i.e. CTC of oath of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi dated 18.8.2018 Exh.PW-8/15 (page 414 Vol-2) (OSR) which was seized by the I.O through seizure memo in the presence of witnesses which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-8/16 (page 413 Vol-2). I.O recorded his statements."
PW.09 Hafeez ur Rehman section officer (Banking) Ministry of Finance, Islamabad. He deposed that on 22.8.2023, he appeared before the I.O Mr. Main Umer Nadeem at NAB office, Islamabad regarding the investigation into illegal transfer of 190 million pounds against the former prime Minister Imran Ahmed khan Niazi. He stated that the Finance Division was not privy to the amount 171 million GBP transferred from UK to the account titled "Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan" maintained in the National Bank of Pakistan. Foreign Office branch, Islamabad. Moreover, the Finance Division was not consulted before the repatriation of funds and had no knowledge about the same. He stated that the said account cannot be termed, stated or equated as the State of Pakistan's Account. All the budgeted revenues/receipts including loans, credits, grants, and government receipt are received from abroad in account No. 1 (non-food account) of the Federal Government unless a specific account is opened in the State Bank of Pakistan. Additionally; a number of government department maintain accounts in commercial banks which cannot be termed as State of Pakistan's Account. The following original documents were seized by the I.O from him in the presence of witnesses and he signed the seizure memos which are as under: -
1. Original of Finance Division dated 5.8.2023 along with annexures, same is Exh.PW-9/1 (page 662 to 665 Vol-3.) (under objection that all the annexures with letter dated 05.08 2023 are scanned copies. originals or certified copies are not available, so the same cannot he exhibited).
2. Original letter of Finance Division dated 8.6.2023 alongwith annexures same is Exh.PW9/2(page 670 to683 vol-3)(under objection as all the annexures with letter dated 8.6.2023 are scanned copies, original or certified copies are not available, .so the same cannot be exhibited).
His signature on the seizure memo is Exh.PW-9/3 (page 661 vol-3).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-10 Muhammad Abbas Khan Goraya patwari Circle Mohra Noor (Banigala). He deposed that on 18.5.2023, he appeared before the I.O Mr. Mian umer Nadeem at NAB Office in connection with investigation against Imran Ahmed Khan's case. He further stated that the land measuring 240 Kanal 6 marlas situated at Moza Mora Noor was transferred from the name of Bahria Town through Ahmed Ali Riaz Malik S/o Malik Riaz Hussain in the name of Mst. Farhat Shahzadi. He produced his report alongwith revenue record which was seized through seizure memo in the presence of witnesses which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-10/1(891 vol-4). He produced the following documents;
1. The original report about the three mutations of land measuring 240 kanals 6 marlas, which is Exh.PW10/2 (page 892 vol-4).
2. CTC of three mutations No. 33905, 34945, and 36144 alongwith copies of 2x resolutions of Bohria Town regarding transfer of land through those mutations, land measuring 240 Kanals 6 marlas was transferred in the name of Mst. Farhat Shahzadi from Bahria Town, the same Is Exh.PW-10/3 (page 893 to 921 Vol-4) (OSR).
Again ho appeared before the I.O in the same case on 12.7.2023 and stated that as per revenue record the value of land measuring 240 kanals 6 marlas was Rs. 532750000/. He produced the following record which was seized by the I.O through seizure memo in the presence of witnesses.
His signature thereon is Exh.PW-10/4 (page 929 vol-4). He produced the following record through the said seizure memo.
1. Report regarding mutations No. 33905, 34945 and 36144, which is Exh.PW-10/5 (page 930 to 933 vol-4).
2. CTC of 14x mutations through which the land measuring 240 Kanals 6 marlas was transferred in the name of Bahria Town from different land owners, the same is Exh.PW-10/6 (pogo 934 to 971 vol- 4) (OSR),
3. Attested copies of roznamcha waqiati dated 13.9.2021, 25.8.2020 and 8.3.2021 of mouza Mora Noor, same is Exh. PW-10/7(page 972 to 978 Vol-4) (OSR).
4. CTC of mutation Nos. 33905, 34945 and 36144, same is Exh.PW-10/8 (page 980 to 1012 Vol-4) alongwith originals of his working regarding price of land, same is Exh. PW-10/9(page 979 Vol-4)
(OSR).
I.O recorded his statements.
PW-11 Mushtaq Ahmad Moharrar ASI PM House. He deposed that on 11.10.2023, he appeared before the I.O Mian Umer Nadeem in the NAB office Islamabad in connection with Investigation against the former Prime Minister Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi regarding the illegal transfer of 190 million pounds.
The I.O asked me to produce the record regarding the visits to the residence of former Prime Minister Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi at Banigala. On 11.7.2019, Malik Riaz visited the said residence from 21:30 pm to 22:01 pm. On the same day, Shahzad Akbar visited the said residence from 21:35 pm to 21:44 pm. He produced copies of the entry register of the visitors of the Ex-PM house Banigala which was seized from him and he signed the seizure memo in presence of witnesses. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-11/1(page 925 Vol-4). Copy of the entry register of the visitors of the Ex-PM house Banigala is Exh.PW-11/2 (page 926 to 927 Vol-4)(OSR). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-12 Syed Zeeshan Haider Branch Operation Manager UBL Bahria Town, Rawalpindi. He deposed that on 20.6.2023, he appeared before the I.O in the NAB office at G-6 Islamabad. He is working as Branch Operation Manager at UBL, Civic Centre Bahria Town phase 4 Rawalpindi. In his branch account No. 223349171 titled 'Begum Akhtar Rukhsana Memorial Welfare Trust is maintained.
As per record Malik Riaz Hussain, and Commodore @M. Ilyas S/o Atta Muhammad are the trustees of 'Begum Akhtar Rukhsana Memorial Welfare Trust'. Six different cheques of different amounts, total amounting to Rs. 235 million were transferred from the above said account to the account of Al-Qadir University Project Trust. He produced certified true copies of account opening form 'Know Your Customer' (KYC), cheques, and system generated account statements etc. I.O seized these documents through seizure memo in presence of witnesses which bears his signature thereon is Exh.PW-12/1 (page 781 Vol-3). He produced the following documents:-
1. CTC of letter dated 20.6.2023, regarding production of record, same is Exh.PW-12/2 (Page 782 vol- 3).
2. System generated account statements of account No. 223349171 from 04.10.2021 to 4.10.2021, same is Exh.PW-12/3 (page 783 Vol-3).
3. System generated amount statements of account No. 223349171 from 18.3.2021 to 18.3.2021, same is Exh.PW-12/4 (page 784 vol-3).
4. System generated amount statements of account No. 223349171 from 13.10.2021 to 13.10.2021, same is Exh.PW-12/5 (page 785 vol-3).
5. System generated amount statements of account No. 223349171 from 07.10.2021 to 07.10.2021, same is Exh.PW-12/6 (page 786 vol-3).
6. System generated amount statements of account No. 223349171 from 18.01.2022 to 18.01.2022, same is Exh.PW-12/7 (page 787 vol-3).
7. System generated amount statements of account No. 223349171 from 15.02.2022 to 15.02.2022, same is Exh.PW-12/8 (page 788 vol-3).
8. CTC of cheque No, 144902391 dated 08.2.2022 amounting to Rs. 50 million, same is Exh.PW-12/9 (page 789 Vol-3)(OSR).
9. CTC of cheque No. 88663384 dated 17.3.2021 amounting to Rs. 50 million, same is Exh.PW-12/10 (page 790 Vol-3)(OSR).
10. CTC of cheque No. 74317538 dated 02.10.2021 amounting to Rs. 30 million, same is Exh.PW-12/11 (page 791 Vol-3) (OSR).
11. CTC of cheque No. 74311539 dated 06.10.2021 amounting to Rs. 30 million, same is Exh.PW-12/12 (page 792 Vol-3) (OSR).
12. CTC of cheque No, 74317546 dated 08.10.2021 amounting to Rs. 25 million, same is Exh.PW-12/13 (page 793 Vol-3) (OSR).
13. CTC of cheque No. 14802390 dated 17.01.2022 amounting to Rs. 50 million, Exh.PW-12/14 (page 794 Vol-3) (OSR).
14. CTC of account opening form of account No. 223349171, Exh.PW-12/15 (page 795 to 798 & 805, 806 Vol-3) (OSR).
15. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of Muhammad Illyas, Exh.P14/-12/16 (page 799 a 800)
(OSR)
16. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of Ahmad Ali Riaz Malik, Exh.PW-12/17 (page 801 & 802)
(OSR).
17. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of Bina Riaz, Exh.PW-12/18 (page 803 & 804) (OSR).
18. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of Malik Riaz Hussain, Exfp.PW-12/19 (page 807 & 608 Vol-3) (OSR).
19. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of Begum Akhtar Rukhsana Memorial Welfare Trust, Exh.PW-12/20 (page 809 & 810 vol-3) (OSR).
20. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of khalid Hameed Exh.PW-12/21 (page 811 812 Val-3)
(OSR).
21. CTC of Customer information Form (KYC) of Khurram Raza Exh.PW-12/22 (page 813 & 814 Vol-3 (OSR).
22. CTC of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) Form of Khalid Hameed, Exh.PW-12/23 (page 815 Vol-3) (OSR).
23. CTC of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FA TCA) Form of Khurram Raza, Exh.PW-12/24 (page 816 Vol-3) (OSR).
24. CTC of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) Form of Begum Akhtar Rukhsana Welfare Exh.PW-12/25 (page 817 vol-3) (OSR).
25. CTC of application regarding request to open bank account, Exh.PW-12/26 (page 824 Vol-3)
(OSR).
26. CTC of Board Resolution regarding opening of bank account, Exh.PW-12/27 (page 839 Vol-3)
(OSR).
27. OTC of declaration form regarding purpose of opening of bank account, Exh.PW-12/28 (page 840 Vol-3) (CSR)
28. CTC of Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) Form, Exh.PW-12/29 (page 843 & 844 Vol-3) (OSR).
29. Copies of miscellaneous documents relating to NADRA verisys of account holders available at pages 818 to 823 Vol-3, deed of trust of Begum Akhtar Rukhsana Memorial Welfare Trust available at pages 825 to 831 Vol-3, list of trustees of Begum Akhtar Rukhsana Memorial Welfare Trust available at pages 832 Vol-3, copy of certificate of registration of Segura Akhtar Rukhsana Memorial Welfare Trust available at pages 834 Vol-3, FBR related documents available at pages 835 to 838 and 842 Vol-3, and copies of ID cards of account holders available at pages 841, 845 to 854 Vol-3.
I.O recorded his statement.
PW.13 Rizwan Azam ADLR Jhelum. He deposed that on 188.2023, he appeared before Mian timer Nadeem I.O/Deputy Director NAB. He produced system generated CTCs or the following record of land measuring 458 kanal-4 marlas-58 sq.ft which was transferred in the name of Al-Qadir University Marfat Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari accused (Since PO):-
1. Copy of DC valuation table (2018 & 2019) District Jhelum Exh.PW-13/1 (page 1347 & 1348 Vo4-5).
2. Copy of DC valuation table (2023) District Jhelum, Exh.PW-13/2 (page 1349 Vol-5).
3. CTC of mutation No 1336 dated 04.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/3 (page 1350 to 1353 Vol-5).
4. CTC of mutation No. 1338 dated 05.04.2019 along challan, Exh.PW-13/4 (page 1354 to 1359 Vol-5).
5. CTC of mutation No. 1340 doled 08.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/5 (page 1360 10 1364 Vol-5).
6. CTC of mutation No. 1342 dated 08.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/6 (page 1365 to 1368 Vol-5).
7. CTC of mutation No. 1343 dated 09.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/7 (page 1369 to 1372 Vol-5).
8. CTC of mutation No. 1344 dated 09.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/8 (page 1373 lo 1378 Vol-5).
9. CTC of mutation No. 1347 dated 13.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/9 (page 1379 10 1383 Vol- 5).
10. CTC of mutation No. 1348 dated 15.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/10 (page 1384 to 1389 Vol-5).
11. CTC of mutation No. 1351 dated 19.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/11 (page 1390 to 1393 Vol- 5).
12. CTC of mutation No. 1355 dated 30.04.2019 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/12 (page 1394 to 1397 Vol-5).
13. CTC of mutation No. 1360 dated 16.02.2021 along with challan, Exh.PW-13/13 (page 1398 to 1409 Vol-5).
(Under objection that PIN has not brought the originals of the aforesaid challans. In response whereto learned PPG NAB submits that the documents are system generated and are perse admissible in evidence being public documents in view of Article 85 of the QSO 1984).
I.O seized these documents through seizure memo in presence of witnesses which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-13/14 (page 1346 Vol-5). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharrir office of the Joint sub-Registrar Office Islamabad. He deposed that on 23.5.2023, he appeared before Mian Umer Nadeem I.O NAB, He produced the following CTCs of record regarding registration of Al-Qadir Trust:-
1. Board Resolution of Al-Qadir Trust passed in May 2019, Exh.PW-14/1 (page 1015 Vol-4) (OSR).
2. Board Resolution of Al-Qadir Trust passed in May 2019, Exh.PW-14/2 (page 1016 Vol-4) (OSR).
3. Trust deed dated 26.12.2019, Exh PW-14/3 (page 1017 to 1028 Vol-4) (OSR).
4. Application by Imran Ahmed khan Niazi dated 22.4.2020, Exh. PW-14/4 (Page 1029 Vol-4)(OSR).
5. Amended trust deed dated 25.4.2020, Exh. PW-14/5 (page 1030 & 1031 Vol-4) (OSR).
6. Amended trust deed dated 10.7.2020, Exh. PW-14/6 (page 1032 & 1042 Vol-4) (OSR).
7. Application by Imran Ahmed khan Niazi, Exh. PW-14/7 (Page 1043 Vol-4) (OSR).
8. Amended trust deed dated 19.3.2021, Exh. PW-14/6 (page 1032 & 1042 Vol-4) (OSR).
I.O seized these documents through seizure memo in presence of witnesses. He signed the same.
His signature thereon is Exh.PW-14/9 (page 1014 vol-4). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-15 Mehmood Ahmed Bhatti Tehsildar Kalar Syedan, Rawalpindi. He deposed that on 16.6.2023, he appeared before Mian Umer Nadeem I.O NAB. He produced the following CTCs of record regarding transfer of land measuring 458 kanal 4 marlas and 58 sq.ft from Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari to Al-Qadir University Project:-
1. Transfer deed No. 71/1 dated 22.1.2021, Exh.PW-15/1 (page 1315 to 1320 Vol-5).
2. Trust deed (Endowment fund of Al-Qadir Institute), Exh.PW-15/2 (page 1321 to 1340 Vol-5).
3. First Amendment Transfer Deed No. 773/1 dated 04.10,2022, Exh.PW-15/5 (page 1341 & 1342 Vol-5).
4. Second Amendment Transfer Deed No. 39/1 dated 24.01.2023, Exh.PW-1514 (page 1343 & 1344 Vol- 5).
I.O seized these documents through seizure memo in presence of witnesses. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-15/5 (page 1314 V01-5). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-16 Manzoor Ahmed Kiani the then Secretary ARU. He deposed that on 21.7.2023, he appealed before Mian Umar Nadeem I.O in NAB office situated at the Melody, Sector G-6, Islamabad. He assumed the charge of the Joint Secretary Cabinet of vision to act as Secretary Assets Recovery Unit housed at the Prime Minister Office. He assumed charge on 06 10.2018 and relinquished the same on 26.2.2021 upon his promotion and further posting as Accountant General Pakistan Revenue. Between the period February 2022 to August 2022, he remained on National Management Course (NVC). He was shown three letters by the I.O and he was aware of those letters which were sent to the Country Manager National Crime Agency Islamabad on the direction, dictation and approve) of the Chairman Assets Recovery Unit, Banister Shahzad Akbar. These letter were dated 19.11.2018 (already exhibited under objection as Exh.FW-4/6), his signature thereon are Exh.PW-16/1 (page 200 Vol-1) (under objection as the already exhibited document is photocopy and Exh.PW- 16/1 cannot he exhibited Wing photocopy, furthermore it door net qualify the requirements mentioned in Article 76 of the QSO 1984. In response, the prosecution submits that the objection of the defence is irrelevant as the certified true copy of the document has already been exhibited in the statement of PW-4. The signature thereon has been recognized by rho witness as his own and the document falls within the ambit of public document, certified copy whereof is perse admissible as per Article 76 (f) of the QSO 1984), letter dated 26.11.2018 (already exhibited under objection as Exh.PW-4/7), his signature thereon are Exh.PW-1 gig (page 201 Vol-1), loiter dated 16.04.2019 (already exhibited under objection as Exh.PW-4/8, his signature thereon are Exh.PW-16/3 (page 202 & 203 Vol-1). Thereafter, be was not aware of any account freezing order related thereto Progress of the ARU was directly communicated by the Chairman Assets Recovery Unit, Barrister Shahzad Akbar to the Prime Minister. Negotiations with NCA UK were conducted by the Chairman ARU with the assistance of expert on International Criminal Law, Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (under objection). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-17 Shafqat Mehmood Director Investigation NAB Rawalpindi. He stated that on 12.4.2023, he appeared before I.O Mian Umer Nadeem at his office. I.O handed over to him copy of email dated 01.07.2022 (already exhibited as Exh.PW-2/1, page 402 Vol-2) for its verification from NCA UK regarding deed of confidentiality (already exhibited as Exh.PW-2/2, page 403 to 411 Vol-2).
Thereafter, on 12.4.2023, he mailed from his official email address smehmood@nab.gov.pk to Graham Orr. Counsellor/Regional Manager for South West and Central Asia National Crime Agency, UK on his official email address i.e. Graham.Orr@gnca.gov.uk for confirmation of authenticity or said email and said confidentiality deed. Email is Exh.PW-17/1 (page 3094 to 3096 Vol-10). On 13.4.2023, the said Mr. Graham confirmed through email Exh.PW-17/2 (page 3097 Vol-10) the genuineness of email received in MOFA from NCA (already exhibited as Exh.PW-2/1, page 402 Vol- 2) and deed at confidentiality Caddied copies of the same were seized by the I.O in presence of witnesses through seizure memo which bears his signature Exh.PW-17/3 (page 3093 Vol-10). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-18 Muhammad Ashraf S.I PS Burakahu. He stated that on 13.10.2023, he appeared before I.O at NAB office. On 11.7.2019, he was on duty at Banigala PM House from 02.00 pm to 10:00 pm on the main gate. On the Said date at 09.30 pm, he allowed and made entry of Malik Riaz Hussain accused (since PO) in the PM house Banigala and Malik Riaz Hussain departed at 10:01 pm. On the same day, he allowed and made entry of Mr. Shahzed Akbar at 09:35 pm and he departed at 09:44 pm from the PM House Banigala. I.O showed to him the said entries on his hand in the visitors register (already exhibited as Exh.PW-11/2, page 926 & 927 Vol-4). He recognized and confirmed the said entries made by him the visitors register which are Exh.PW-18/1 (page 926 & 927 Vol-4) (under objection). I.O recorded his statement."
PW-19 Sehrish Ghulam Deputy Director NAB Headquarters, Islamabad. She stated that on 20.04.2023, Mien Umer Nadeem I.O visited her office end seized the letter dated 18.4.2023 Exh.PW- 19/1 (page 3026 vor-9) alongwith emails (already exhibited as Exh.PW-17/1 & Exh.PW-17/2 respectively). The said letter bears her signature Exh.PW-119/2 (page 3026 Vol-9). The said letter was taken into possession by the I.O through seizure memo and her signature thereon Exh.PW-19/3 (page 3025 Vol-9).
PW-20 Muhammad Jamal LDC office of the Cabinet Secretary. He stated that on 22.11.2023, the I.O visited his office and seized eight pages of diary register in presence of witnesses and he signed the seizure memo. His signature thoron is Exh.PW-20/1 (page 2366 Vol-08). CTC of eight pages of diary register of the Cabinet Secretary of Islamabad is Ext.PW-20/2 (page 2368 to 2375 Vol-08)
(original seen and returned). I.O recorded his statement.
PW-21 Nadeem Yaqoob Butt Superintendent Prime Minister Office:- His deposition is that on 22.11.2023, I.O visited his office and seized CTC /record of registers in presence of witnesses. He signed the seizure memo. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-21/1 (page 2379 Vol-08). The following documents were seized: -
1. CTC of dairy register PM Office, Exh.PW-21/2 (page 2380 to 2395 Vol-8) (OSR).
2. CTC of counter register PM Officer Exh.PW-21/3 (page 2396 to 2411 Vol-08) (OSR).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-22 Zohab Kaleem Deputy Director SECP, Islamabad. He stated that on 25 May 2023, he appeared before the I.O Mian Umer Nadeem in NAB office and produced CTC record of Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. I.O seized these documents in presence of witnesses through seizure memo which bears his Signature. His signature thereupon is Exh.PW-22/1 (page 1622 Vol-6). He produced the following documents: -
1. CTC of certificate of incorporation, Exh.PW-22/2 (page 1623 Vol-6) (OSR).
2. CTC of Form-I dated 30.11.1995, Exh.PW-22/3 (page 1624 Vol-6) (OSR).
3. CTC of Memorandum and Article of Association, Exh.PW-22/4 (page 1625 to 1647 Vol-6) (OSR).
4. CTC of Farm-21 dated 30.11 1995, Exh.PW-22/5 (page 1648 1101-6) (OSR).
5. Form(s) 29 dated 30.11,1995, 07.01.1998, 20.1.1997, 10.2.2016, 30.11.2016, 11.10.2016, 30.11.2016, 25.6.2018, 20.6.2018, 30.12.2019, 20.11.2020, 13.9.2021, and 27.11.2021. Exh.PW-22/6 (pages 1649 to 1651, 1655, 1656, 1660, 1661, 1664, 1666, 1671 & 1672, 1675 & 1676, 1677 & 1678, 1679 & 1680 Vol-6 respectively)(OSR).
6. CTC of Form(s) A submitted for the dates 30.11.2015, 30.11.2016, 30.11,2017, 28.2.2019, 30.12.2019, 21.11.2020, 27.11.2021 and 28.11.2022, Exh.PW-22/7 (pages 1652 & 1653, 1658 & 1659, 1562 & 1663, 1667 & 1666, 1669 & 1670, 1673 & 1674, 1681 & 1682, 1683 & 1684 respectively).(OSR).
7. CTC of Form (s) 3A, dated 22.6.2018, and 11.5.2023. Exh.PW-22/8 (Pages 1665, 1685 & 1606 V6-6 respectively) (OSR).
8. CTC of audited accounts from June 30th 2016 to June 30th 2021, Exh.PW-22/9 (pages 1687 to 1940 Vol-6) (original Seen and retuned except audited accounts for the year 30.62017 &, 30.6.2078).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-23 Mazhar of Abideen Branch Operation Manager HBL new sabzimandi Karachi. He deposed that on 20.6.2023, he appeared before I.O Man timer Nadeem in NAB office. In his branch account No. 18506-3 titled Bahria Town Pvt Ltd Karachi, collection is maintained. On 18.2.2021. Rs. 50 million was transferred from his account to account No 20855 fitted Al-Qadir University Project Trust maintained at HBL, CDA Civic Center, Islamabad. I produced CTC documents to the I.O in presence of witnesses who seized the same through seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature is Exh.PW-2311 (page 712 Vol-3). He produced the following documents.
1. System generated account statement of account No. 2432-79018606-3 for the date 18.2.2021, Exh.PW-23/2 (page 713 VoI-3).
2. CTC of Account Opening form along with supporting documents; Exh.PW-23/3 (pages 714 to 719, 720, 721to 725 Vol-3) (OSR).
3. CTC of deposit slip dated 18.2.2021 regarding deposit of Rs. 50 million, ExhPW-23/4 (page 778 Vof- 3) (OSR).
4. CTC of letter dated 18.2.2021 regarding transfer of Rs. 50 million to the account of Al-Qadir University Project Trust, Exh.PW-23/5 (page 779 Vol-3) (OSR).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-24 Fahad Mehmood Branch Manager Allied Bank G.T. road Dina, Jhelum. Ho deposed that on 14 June 2023, he appeared before the I.O Mian Umer Nadeem at NAB office G-6, Islamabad. He produced CTC of bank record of University Project endowment Fund Trust Account to the I.O who seized the record in presence of witnesses. He signed the seizure memo which bears his signature, His signature is Exh.PW-24/1 (page 2966 Vol-9). He produced the following documents: -
1. System generated bank statement of account titled Al-Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust having account No. 0020088898880037 for the period 24th May 2013 to 24th May 2023 showing Real Time Gross Settlement System (RTGS) payment credit of an amount of Rs. 15 million from the account maintained at HBL of account titled Al-Qadir University Project Trust, Exh.PW-24/2 (page 2967 Vol-9).
2. CTC of list of trustees, Exh.PW-24/3 (page 2972 Vol-9) (OSR).
3. CTC of declaration dated 2.2.2023 regarding purpose/ultimate control etc. Exh.PW-24/4 (page 2997 Vol-9) (OSR).
4. CTC of undertaking to inform the bank about change of control/ownership of trust etc dated 2.2.2023, Exh.PW-24/5 (page 2998 Vol-9) (OSR).
5. CTC of undertaking for not utilizing/availing accounts or banking services from Allied Bank dated 2.2.2023, Exh.PW-24/6 (page 2999 Vol-9) (OSR).
He also produced photocopies of other documents which were also seized by the I.O. available at pages 2968 to 3020 Vol-9 apart from the documents exhibited above I.O. recorded his statement.
PW-25 Syed Gohar Maqsood SVP National, Bank of Pakistan Headquarters Karachi. He deposed that on 29 May 2023, he appeared before I.O Mian Umer Nadeem at NAB office on the direction of Bank management. He had produced FCY remittances transaction summery in original and system generated documents which includes, FX Rates Sheet, Foreign exchange transaction vouchers, Swift MTs, statement of account showing the investment in the market treasury bills, deposit account statement and covering letter dated 24.5.2023 before the I.O who seized the same through seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-25/1(page 1948 Vol-7). The details of documents are as under:-
1. Copy of letter dated 24.5.2023 written by him and addressed to Muhammad Sarwar Shahid, VP/Coordinator and VP Head Office Karachi, Exh.PW-25/2 (original is available at page 1945 Vol-6)
2. Original details of FCY remittances, Exh.PW-25/3 (page 1950 Vol-7)
3. System generated FX Rates sheet dated 3.12.2019, Exh.PW-25/4 (page 1951 Vol-7)
4. System generated foreign exchange transaction vouchers, Exh.PW-25/5 (page 1952 to 1956 Vol- 7).
5. System generated swift MTs Exh.PW-25/6 (pages 1957 to 1969 vol-7).
6. System generated account statement showing amount invested in T-Bills against FCY remittances of account titled the Registrar supreme court of Pakistan CRP 288-291/2018 IPS account No IDG0818002 from the period 1.1.2018 to 23.5.2023, Exh. PW-25/7 (page 1970 Vol-71).
7. System generated attested account statement of account titled the Registrar supreme court of Pakistan CRP288-291/2018 account No.4151238163 from the period 1.1.2018 to 18.5.2023 Exh. PW-25/8 (page 1972 to 1982 Vol-7).
I.O recorded his statement."
PW-26 Muhammad Ali Taj Deputy Commissioner FBR /IRS/RTO Lahore. He stated that on 17.11.2023, he appeared before the I.O in the NAB office. He produced CTC of system generated tax record of Mst. Farhat Shehzadi for the year 2018 to 2013. I.O seized these documents through seizure memo in presence of witnesses. He signed the said seizure memo. His signature thereon is thereon is Exh.PW-26/1 (3034Vol-10) He produced the following documents:-
1. CTC of system generated taxpayer registration profile of Mst. Farhat Shahzadi, Exh.PW-26/2 (page 3035 Vol-10).
2. CTC of system generated application for extension to file tax return alongwith order granting extension for the tax year 2023, Exh.PW-26/3 (pages 3036 & 3037 Vol-10).
3. CTC of System generated notice to file tax return and application for extension to file tax return for the year 2022, Exh.PW-26/4 (pages 3038 & 3038A Vol-10).
4. CTC of system generated tax return and wealth statement for the year 2021 Exh.PW-26/5 (pages 3039 to 3048 Vol-10).
5. C TC of system generated tax return and wealth statement for the year 2020, Exh. PW-26/6 (pages 3049 to 3056 Vol-10).
6. CTC of system generated tax return and wealth statement for the year 2019, Exh.PW-26/7 (pages 3057 to 3064 Vol-10).
7. CTC of system generated tax return and wealth statement for the year 2018, Exh.PW-26/8 (pages 3065 to 3071 Vol-10).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-27 Ghulam Haider Superintendent ARU PM Office. He stated that on 10.11.2023, he appeared before the I.O at NAB office and produced the CTC of notification dated 18.1 2019 for the appointment of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim Exh.PW-27/1 (page 2963 Vol-9) (OSR). I.O seized the same through seizure memo in presence of witnesses. He signed the seizure memo. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-27/2 (page 2962 Vol-9).
He again appeared before the I.O of NAB office on 21.11.2023 and produced the CTC of section diary register, Exh.PW-2713 (page 3076 to 3079 Vol-10)(0SR), CTC of DAK book register, Exit PW-2714 (page 3080 to 3083 Vol-10)(OSR) and CTC of SAPM diary/section register, Exh.PW-27/5 (page 3084 to 3089 Vol-10)(OSR). I.O seized these documents through seizure memo in presence of witnesses- He signed the seizure memo. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-27/6 (pay 3075 Vol-10). Record of note to the Prime Minister dated 2.12.2019 is rant available in his diary/dispatch register I.O recorded his statement.
PW-28 Yasir Azeem Assistant Director (Reporting) integrated Boarder Management System (DBMS), Islamabad. He stated that on 15.11.2023, he appeared before the I.O at NAB office and he produced original letter dated 15.11.2023 signed by himself and the system generated travel history of Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, Malik Riaz Hussain, Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari, Mirza Shahzad Akbar.
Ahmed Ali Riaz and Farhat Shahzadi and I.O seized the same through seizure memo bra presence of witnesses signed the seizure memo His signature thereon is Exh.PW-2811 (page 2415 Val-8). The documents produced by him are as under:-
1. Original letter dated 15.11.2023, signed by myself addressed to the Deputy Director (Coord) IW-II, NAB, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, Exh.PW-28/2 (page 2416 Vol-8).
2. System generated travel history of Mr. Zia ul Mustafa Nasim, is Exh.PW-28/3 (page 2417 to 2419 Vol-8).
3. System generated travel history of Mr. Malik Riaz Hussain, is Exh.PW-28/4 (page 2420 to 2434 V0l- 8).
4. System generated travel history of Syed Zulfiqar Abbasi Bokhari, is Exh.PW-28/5 (page 2435 to 2442 vol-8).
5. System generated travel history of Mirza Shahzad Akbar, is Exh.PW-28/6 (page 2443 to 2449 vol- 8).
6. System generated travel history of Ahmed Ali Riaz, is Exh.PW-28/7 (page 2450 to 2457 vol-8).
7. System generated travel history of Mst. Farhat Shahzadi, is Exh.PW-28/8 (page 2458 to 2461 vol- 8).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-29 Abdul Hamid Anwar Secretary ARU Cabinet Division, Islamabad. He stated that an 8.10.2023, he appeared before the I.O at NAB office. He produced CTC of documents containing letter dated 27.9.2023 written by himself to the I.G Police Islamabad for registration of FIR against Mirza Shahzad Akbar Ex-SAPM, Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim legal expert and Imran Iqbal Panjwani legal expert. As per record no formal Reference from concerned department is available about nomination of members of Assets Recovery Unit. I.O seized the record produced by him in the presence of witnesses through seizure memo which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW29/1 (page 1048 Vol4). The documents produced by him are as under-
1. CTC of letter dated 27.9.2023, written by him to the IG Police Islamabad, is Exh.PW-29/2 (page 1049 to 1050 Vol-4) original office copy is seen and returned).
2. CTC of latter dated 4.9.2023 addressed to him and the Secretary Cabinet Division is Exh.PW-29/3 (page 1051 Vol-4) (OSR).
3. CTC of office order dated 5.9.2023, regarding Constitution of inquiry Committee, is Exh.PW-29/4 (page 1052 Vol-4) (OSR).
4. CTC of letter dated 14.9.2023 already exhibited as Exh.PW-(Page 526 Vol-3).
5. CTC of office copy of letter dated 22.9.2023 addressed to the Secretary Cabinet Division, is Exh.PW-29/5 (page 1054 Vol-4) (original office copy is seen and returned).
6. CTC of report of the inquiry committee on Assets Recovery Unit's status and record original report already exhibited as Exh.PW-6/2 (page 527 to 659 Vol-3).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-30 Muhammad Naveed Akbar Ex-Section Officer ARU. He deposed that on 27.7.2023, he appeared before the I.O at NAB office during his posting the Chairman ARU Shahzad Akbar was controlling all the affairs of Assets Recovery Unit and most of the record was in his personal possession. Moreover, he attended meetings with the National Crime Agency officials along with Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim expert on International Criminal Law. During his tenure, he initiated a note in March 2019 already exhibited as Exh.PW-4/15 (available at pages 222 and 223 Vol-1) regarding distribution of work of Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim in which he proposed that on case to case basis ARU may take the prior approval of Ministry of Law and Justice in order to avoid any conflict of interest and violation of the Rules of Business He also proposed that his duty is to assist ARU and filling of any legal proceedings for the purpose of repatriation of unlawful assets from aboard in Consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice, however, Mr. Shahzad Akbar made amendments in his above said note and omitted his proposal regarding approval of Ministry of Law and Justice. I.O showed him the said note. He admitted that it is the same note initiated by him which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-30/1 (page 223 Vol-1).
I.O recorded his statement."
PW-31 Pervaiz Khan khattak Ex. Defence Minister. His deposition is that he received notice of NAB in May/June 2023. I.O inquired him that what happened in the Cabinet meeting held in December 2019. In that Cabinet meeting Shahzad Akbar (since PO) the then SAPM to Prime Minister of Pakistan, presented an additional agenda for Cabinet meeting. Shahzad Akbar (since PO) told Cabinet that there was an agreement between the State of Pakistan and UK. Shahzad Akbar further inform that it has been agreed between UK and the State of Pakistan in that agreement that whatever illegal money would be found in UK that will be confiscated and returned to Government of Pakistan. Shahzad Aber since PO) showed a sealed envelope and told that the envelope contained the agreement which had been reached between the UK and Government of Pakistan.
Shahzad Akbar (since PO) further told that 190 million pound of Pakistan has been confiscated by the UK which would be repatriated to Government or Pakistan, On this matter he and other cabinet members raised objections that they trust be informed about the contents of the agreement.
Shahzad Akbar (since PO) told the cabinet that the agreement was confidential on which all the cabinet members went silent. Thereafter, the agenda was approved by the cabinet headed by the then Prime Minister.
I.O called him during investigation of this case. I.O told him that there was a note with the envelope.
I.O told him that in that note shahzad Akbar (since PO) had written that the money will be transferred to Malik Riaz etc the owners of Bahria Town. I.O further told him that a portion of money had already been transferred prior to the Cabinet meeting. He submitted written statement to the I.O during investigation, (learned defence counsel has raised objection that this para of statement of PW is hearsay, thus inadmissible in evidence), the abjection raised by learned defence counsel shall be decided after completion of statement of PW.
PW-32 Zubaida Jalal Ex.Federal Minister. She deposed that in May 2023, she appeared before the I.O of this case at NAB Rawalpindi office. She appeared as Defence Production Minister in Cabinet which was held in December 2019. In that Cabinet meeting an Islamabad additional agenda item was put by Shahzad Akbar (Since PO) in the form a sealed envelope. Normally according to Rules of Business agenda of meeting is circulated prior to the Cabinet meeting. However the procedure was not followed with reference to above mentioned agenda in that cabinet meeting. The briefing of Shahzad Akbar (Since PO) was about 190 million pound before the Cabinet. Shahzad Akbar (Since PO) informed the cabinet that the money i.e. 190 million pound was illegally transferred to UK and the NCA UK informed the government of Pakistan that this money is there because this is confidential so no debate or discussion needs to take place on this issue. Furthermore, when cabinet wanted to deliberate on this issue as its importance Shahzad Akbar (Since PO) insisting because of confidentiality of this matter they should approved this agenda without deliberation and discussion. Upon which this witness and other cabinet members also asked for deliberation upon this issue but Shahzad Akbar (since PO) insisted upon approval of this agenda without discussion. Shahzad Akbar (Since PO) further told that this money will be repatriated to Government of Pakistan. On this reason in good faith we all of us approved the agenda. The then PM (accused Iman Ahmed) after this discussion said to approve the agenda.
When she before the I.O of the case. The I.O showed her two documents, one was the note to the Prime Minster and one was the confidential deed (already exhibited as Exh. PW-3/9 page 280 to 288 Vol-2) which she had no information about those documents prior to that time when these documents were shown to her. Thereafter I.O recorded her statement ids 161 Cr.P.C learned defence counsel objected that the statement of PW is hearsay evidence, hence not admissible).
PW-33 Muhammad Aram Khan Ex. Secretary to the then Prime Minister. He deposed that he served as Secretary to the Prime Minister or Pakistan from August 2018 to April 2022. The SAPM Accountability Shahzad Mbar (since PO) brought a note to him signed by Shahzad Akbar (Since PO). The note pertained to seeking approved of the Prime Minister for presenting the matter of signing of confidentiality deed to the Cabinet for consideration. Shehzad (since PO) said that the Prime Minister had allowed the note to be presented before the Cabinet. He confirmed from the Prime Minister the same and accordingly conveyed approval on file to the Cabinet Secretary for processing The same for consideration of the Cabinet He handed over the file to the Cabinet Secretary who was already in his office He is not privy to discussion in the Cabinet on the matter as he did not attend the Cabinet meeting it being in camera session (the note as already exhibited as Exh.PW-3/9 page 289 Vol-2). Ho recognized his signature on the note (Exh.PW-3/9 page 289). His signature thereon is Exh.PW-33/1 (page 289 Vol-2). I.O recorded his statement."
PW-34 Umair Ahmed Rather Deputy Director NAB Rawalpindi. He stated on oath that on 19.10.2023 he appeared before the I.O Deputy Director Mian umer Nadeem. He was working as Deputy Director (Coord), investigation Wing NAB Rawalpindi at that I.O of this case had enquired about the details and particulars of any pending inquiries or investigation against Malik Riaz Hussain (since PO) and M/s Bahria Town as on 18.4.2019. He replied that the following five cases were under process in Investigation wing.
1. Investigation regarding illegal allotment of amenity plots of Bagh Ibn-e-Qasim (now Reference No. 3/2020, the State Vs Mae Riaz Hussain and others pending before Accountability Court, Islamabad).
2. Investigation regarding fake bank accounts scam registered vide FIR No. 4/2018 (now Reference No. 2/2019, the State Vs Hussain Lawai and others).
3. Investigation regarding Illegal allotment and regularization of government land in favor of Pink Residency (now Reference No. 4/2019, The State Vs Khawaja Anwar Maki and others)
4. Inquiry regarding transactions of 8.3 billion rupees of Bahria Town into the fake bank account through joint account of APS Mushtaq Ahmad and Zain Malik (now Reference No. 8/2021, the State Vs Asif Ali Zardari and others).
5. Inquiry regarding Rs. 1.22 billion kickbacks in JV-opal.
Furthermore I.O seized record through seizure memos in his presence on the dates mentioned below and he signed the same seizure memos as marginal witness.
1. Seizure memo dated 18.10.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/1 (page 254 Vol-2).
2. Seizure memo dated 16.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/2 (page 261 Vol-2).
3. Seizure memo dated 16.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/3 (page 401 Vol-2).
4. Seizure memo dated 18.10.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/4 (page 413 Vol-2).
5. Seizure memo dated 18.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/5 (page 416 Vol-2).
6. Seizure memo dated 24.08.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/6 (page 505 Vol.2).
7. Seizure memo dated 18.10.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/7 (page 525 Vol-3).
8. Seizure memo dated 22.08.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/8 (page 661 vol-3).
9. Seizure memo dated 27.09.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/9 (page 687 vol-3)
10. Seizure memo dated 20.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/10 (page 712 Vol-3).
11. Seizure memo dated 20.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PIV-34/11 (page 781 Vol-3).
12. Seizure memo dated 16.05.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/12 (page 856 Vol-4).
13. Seizure memo dated 18.05.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/13 (page 891 Vol-4).
14. Seizure memo dated 11.10.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/14 (page 925 Vol-4).
15. Seizure memo dated 12.07.2023, his signatures Thereon are Exh.PW-34/15 (page 929 Vol-4).
16. Seizure memo dated 18.10.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/16 (page1048 vol-4)
17. Seizure memo dated 13.10.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/17 (page 1183 Vol-4)
18. Seizure memo dated 27.09.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/18 (page 1204 Vol-4).
19. Seizure memo dated 16.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/19 (page 1314 Vol-5).
20. Seizure memo dated 16.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/20(page 1346 Vol-5).
21. Seizure memo dated 23.05.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/21 (page1474 vol-5).
22. Seizure memo dated 27.09.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/22 (page 1611 Vol-5).
23. Seizure memo dated 25.05.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/23 (page 1622 Vol-6),
24. Seizure memo dated 29. 05.2023, his signatures Thereon are Exh.PW-34/24 (page 1943 Vol-6).
25. Seizure memo dated 29.05.2023, his signatures Thereon are Exh.PW-34/25 (page 1948 Vol-7).
26. Seizure memo dated 29.05.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/26 (page 1985 vol-7).
27. Seizure memo dated 15.11.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/27 (page 2415 vol-8).
28. Seizure memo dated 18.05.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/28 (page 2465 vol-8).
29. Seizure memo dated 10.11.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/29 (page 2962 vol-9).
30. Seizure memo dated 14.06.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/30 (page 2966 vol-9).
31. Seizure memo dated 17.11.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/31 (page 3034 vol-10).
32. Seizure memo dated 18.04.2023, his signatures thereon are Exh.PW-34/32 (page 3093 vol-10).
I.O recorded his statement.
PW-35 Mian Umer Nadeem I.O He deposed that Director General NAB Rawalpindi was empowered to authorize the inquiry vide letter dated 15 July 2022, which is Exh.PW-34/1 (page1vol-1). (STO) subsequently, the inquiry was authorized to Mr. Yasir Rahman vide letter dated 15 July 2022, which is Exh.PW-35/2 (page 2 Vol-1). Later on, upon transfer of Mr. Yasir Rehman the case was authorized to him vide letter dated 07.12.2022, which is Exh.PW-35/3(page3vol-1). After completion of inquiry the case was upgraded into investigation by the Chairman NAB vide delegation of power letter dated 20.4.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/4 (page 4 Vol-1). Accordingly, the investigation of the case was authorized to him vide letter dated 28.4.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/15 (page 5 Vol-1). The report of inquiry was handed over to accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran. During the course or inquiry and investigation, he collected relevant evidence from the witnesses through seizure memos details of which are as under: -
1. Seizure memo dated 27.6.2023 which is Exh.PW-35/6 (page 8 Vol-1) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-4/2 to Exh.PW-4/18).
2. Seizure memo dated 29.11.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/7 (page 243 Vol-1) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-5/5).
3. Seizure memo dated 27.6.2023, which is Exh.FW-35/8 (page 250 Vol-1) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-1/1 to Exh.PW-1/2).
4. Seizure memo dated 18.10.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/9 (page 254 Vol-2) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-3/27 to Exh.PW-3/29).
5. Seizure memo dated 16.6.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/10 (page 260 & 261 Vol-2) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-3/2 to Exh.PW-3/24).
6. Seizure memo dated 16.6.2023, which is Exh.PW.35/11 (page 401 Vol-2) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-2/1 to Exh.PW-2/2).
7. Seizure memo deed 18. 10.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/12 (page 413 Vol-2) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-8/15).
8. Seizure memo dated 16.6.2023, which is Exh.PW-3513 (page 416 Vol-2) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-8/2 to Exh.PW-8/13).
9. Seizure memo dated 06.8.2021 which is Exh.PW-35/14 (page 521 Vol-2) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-7/1).
10. Seizure memo dated 16.10.2023, which is Exp.PW-35/15 (page 525 Vol-3) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-6/1 to Exh.PW-6/2).
11. Seizure memo dated 22.8.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/16 (page 661 Vol-3) containing record already exhibited as Exh.PW-9/1 to Exh.PW-9/2).
12. Seizure memo dated 20.6.2023, which is Exh.PW-35117 (page 712 Vol-3) containing record already exhibited as Exh.PW-23/2 to Exh.PW-23/5).
13. Seizure memo dated 20.6.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/18 (page 781 Vol-3) containing record already exhibited as Exh.PW-1212 to Exh.PW-11/29 and other miscellaneous documents).
14. Seizure memo dated 18.5.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/19 (page 891 Vol-4) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-10/2 to Exh.PW-10/3).
15. Seizure memo dated 11.10.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/20 (page 925 Vol-4) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-11/2).
16. Seizure memo dated 12.7.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/21 (page 929 Vol-4) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-10/5 to Exh.PW-10/9).
17. Seizure memo dated 23.5.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/22 (page 1014 Vol-4) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-14/1 to Exh.PW-14/8).
18. Seizure memo dated 18.10.2023. which is Exh.PW-35/23 (page 1048 Vol-4) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-29/2 to Exit PW-29/5, & Exh.PW-6/2).
19.Seizure memo dated 16.6.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/24 (page 1314 Vol-5) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-15/1 to Exh.PW-15/4).
20. Seizure memo dated 16.6.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/25 (page 1346 Vol-5) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-13/1 to Exh.PW-13/13).
21. Seizure memo dated 23.5.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/26 (page 1474 Vol-5) containing record already marked as Mark PW-5/a, Mark PW-5/b and already exhibited as (Exh.PW-5/2 to Exh.PW- 5/10 and various other documents).
22. Seizure memo dated 27.9.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/27 (page 1611 Vol-5) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-5/12).
23 Seizure memo dated 25.5.2023. which is Exh.PW-35/28 (page 1621 to 1622 Vol-6) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-22/2 to Exh.PW-22/9).
24. Seizure memo dated 29.5.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/29 (page 1948 Vol-7) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-25/2 to Exh.PW-25/8).
25. Seizure memo dated 22.11.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/30 (page 2366 Vol-8) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-20/2).
26. Seizure memo dated 22.11.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/31 (page 2379 Vol-8) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-21/2 to Exh.PW-21/3).
27. Seizure memo dated 15.11.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/32 (page 2415 Vol-8) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-2812 to Exh.PW-28/3).
28. Seizure memo dated 10,111023, which is Exh.PW-35/33 (page 2962 Vol-9) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-27/1).
29. Seizure memo dated 14.6.2023, which is Exh.FW-35/34 (page 2966 Vol-9) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-24/2 to Exh.PW-24/6 and other miscellaneous documents).
30. Seizure memo dated 20.4.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/35 (page 3025 Vol-9) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-19/1, Exh.PW-17/1, Exh.PW-1712).
31. Seizure memo dated 17.11.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/26 (page 3034 Vol-10) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-26/2 to Exh.PW-25/8).
32. Seizure memo dated 21.11.2023, which is Exh.PW-35137 (page 3075 Vol-10) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-2713 to Exh.PW-2715).
33. Seizure memo dated 18.4.2023, which is Exh.PW-35/38 (page 3093 Vol-10) containing record already exhibited as (Exh.PW-17/1, Exh.PW-17/2, Exh.PW-2/1)
During inquiry and investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded whose names are mentioned in the list of witnesses. As per record collected the Cabinet approved the establishment of Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) for implementation of recovery of unlawful assets abroad. The ARU was housed in the Prime Minister's Office and reported directly to the Prime Minister.
The record seized during investigation revealed that shortly after creation of ARU, letters were written to Mr. Osman Ahmed, Country Manager National Crime Agency Islamabad on direction, dictation and approval of accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO). As per the evidence collected the NCA obtained venous Account Freezing Orders (AFOS) under the proceeds of Crime Act, 2002 pertaining to freezing orders regarding proceeds of criminal activity.
Furthermore, the sale proceeds of One Hyde Park place were also to be repatriated to the State of Pakistan. On 21.3.2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the offer of Rs. 460 Billion against the payment of land pertaining to Bahria Town Karachi to be deposited in the designated account opened by the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Between 04.4.2019 and 30.4.20/9, land measuring 458 Kanats 4 merles 56 sq.ft were purchased by Bahria Town Pvt Ltd and transferred in the name of Al Qadir University Trust through accused Zulfi Bukhari (Since PO) at the time when the trust was not even in existence. As per the evidence, accused Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (Since PO) was the Special Assistant to the then Prime Minister namely accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi at that time. As per record, accused Malik star Hussain (since PO) and accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO) he visited the residence of accused Imran Ahmed Khan on 11.7.2019 at Banigala. On 2.12.2019, accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO) initiated a note for Prime Minister which dishonestly portrayed that the amount was to be repatriated to the State of Pakistan. Shahzad Akbar (since PO) brought the note directly to the Prime Minister accused Imran Ahmed Khan by hand and got it approved by accused Imran Ahmed Man who Instructed to place the note before the Cabinet without prior circulation. On 3.12.2019 the said note was presented in the Cabinet meeting in which accused Imran Ahmed Khan insisted to approve it without consultation and deliberation in sealed envelope (under objection). Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO) in connivance with accused Imran Ahmed Khan had already singed and submitted the deed of confidentiality to the NCA on 6.11.2019 on behalf of Government of Pakistan before the approval of Cabinet meeting dated 3.12.2019 (STO). Accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (Since PO) also signed me deed of confidentiality as witness. No opinion of Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Finance was obtained. The designated account mentioned in deed of confidentiality was meant for deposit for payment of price of land by Bahria Town Ltd Karachi which was not the account of State of Pakistan. Moreover, the amount was transferred in this account even before the Cabinet meeting dated 3.12.2019. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan in connivance with accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since PO) enabled the transfer of funds meant for State of Pakistan into the account for payment 01 price of land. This illegal and malafide act caused loss of GBP 171.159 million to the State of Pakistan.
By virtue of trust deed dated 26.12.2019 a trust named Al-Qadir University Project was registered by Dr. Baber Awan. Accused Imran Ahmed than was the Chairmen of trust whereas accused Imran Ahmed Khan. Bushra Imran and Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (since PO were the trustees. On 10.7.2020, the trust was purportedly amended in which substantial amendments were made and accused Imran Ahmed Khan became the settler/founder of the trust and also became lifetime Chairman of the trust. Accused Zulfi Bukhari (since PO) and Baber Awan were removed as trustees. On 24.3.2021, accused Bushra Imran signed the acknowledgment of donation deed with Bahria Town Ltd in which she endorsed the donation i.e. land, building, kind etc in return of illegal favor extended to Malik Riaz Hussain etc (since PO) accused Imran Ahmed Khan illegal obtained various benefits in the shape of aforesaid land measuring 458 kanals cash Rs. 285 million, building worth Rs. 284 million and other valuable things under the garb of donation in the trust in which accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and accused Bushra Imran were trustees (STO).
The revenue record collected revealed that shortly before becoming the trustee of Al Qadir University Trust Project, the total land measuring 240 kanal situated at Mouza Mohra Noor Islamabad was transferred in the name of accused Farhat Shahzadi (since PO) from Ahmed Ali Riaz (since PO). No proof is available on record regarding payment of any sale consideration and of accused Farhat Shahzadi (since PO) having means or sources for payment of the sale consideration of the said land of behalf of accused Khan and Bushra Imran. On 23.11.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan directed that the funds received from UK are to be transferred to the Government of Pakistan.
Various call up notices were issued to accused Imran Ahmed Khan and accused Bushra Imran, however they failed to cooperate and refused to answer questions and to provide information to justify the diversion of funds meant for state of Pakistan to the account meant for payment of price of land by Bahria Town Ltd (STO). Accused Bushra Imran admitted that accused Farhat Shahzadi is like her daughter and accused Farhat Shahzadi was also trustee of the trust (STO). 240 kanals land at Mohra Noor was transferred the name of accused Farhat Shahzadi from accused Ahmed Ali Riaz(since PO) regarding which no proof of sale consideration is available. Accused Farhat Shahzadi (since PO) acted as front person of accused Imran Ahmed khan and accused Bushra Imran. After completion of the investigation, he prepared investigation report whereupon the Chairman NAB filed the instant Reference against the accused persons mentioned therein.
19. The said PWs were cross examined by the learned defence counsel. The witness namely Mohsin Ali Khan, Waqas Ahmed, Qaiser Ali Khalid Mehmood, Aurangzeb Khan, Muhammad Umair Mansoor, Shahryar Yaqoob, Shan-e-Islam, Asma Khalid, Yasir Rehman were given up on 03.05.2024, and the PW Nadeem Afzal Gondal on 20.07.2024 whereas PWs Muhammad Amjad Aziz Oazi, Muhammad Amjad ur Rehman, Talib Hussain, Ali Javaid, Syed Mehmood Ali, Syed Munawar Hussain, Muhammad Saeed, Shakeel Akhtar, Sarwar Shahid, Abdul Hameed Khan, Muhammad Arslan, lnayat Malik, and Jamil Sarwar Malik were given up by the prosecution on 07.08.2024 being unnecessary. Learned defence counsel got exhibited and marked during cross examination the documents i.e. attendance list of the Cabinet Meeting dated 13.09.2018 as Exh.PW-3/Dx1, application for tax exemption of the AQUPT dated 04.02.2021 as Exh.PW-5/Dx1, FBR reply to the AQUPT dated 14.02.2022 as Exh.PW-5/Dx2 application for status of degree awarding institute as Mark PW-5/DxA signature of Manzoor Ahmed Kiani on the office note/minutes sheet initiated by the SO ARU as Exh.PW-16/Dx1, signature of Manzoor Ahmed Kiani on the office note as Exh.PW-16/Dx2, letter dated 16.07.2019 as Exh.PW-27/Dx1, written statement submitted before the Cabinet Committee dated 25.07.2022 by Muhammad Naveed Akbar as Exh.PW-30/Dx1, minutes of EB meeting No 342 dated 21.04.2020 as Exh.PW-35./DA-1-3, The prosecution closed its evidence on 06.11.2024 and the case was fixed for statements/examination of the accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C. On 12.12.2024, bath the accused were examined u/s 342 Cr.P.C. In reply to question No. 76 accused Imran Ahmed Khan pleaded as under:- "Q.76 Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you?
Ans. I am 72 years old and have led principled life maintaining honesty and integrity at all fronts I have served Pakistan as the 22 Prime Minister and at no point misused or abused power and authority and have lived my life within means, l have received my education from the prestigious Oxford University UK and during early days given my fondness for the sport was fortunate to be selected in the cricket team of Pakistan where I was eventually able to lift the World Cup for the nation in the year 1992.
After a satisfying and successful career in cricket devoted myself to the social work focusing on the betterment and amelioration of the state of affairs where needed. I started my political career by forming Pakistan Tahreek Insaf (PTI) and worked tirelessly till it became one of the most popular party on the political landscape of Pakistan. In 2018, l was elected as the 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan and remained in office till 10.4.2022. As a result of well-orchestrated conspiracy, l was removed from the office of Prime Minister following a vote of no confidence resulting in the overthrow of the government. Since the day, I have been a victim of endless unprecedented and the most ruthless political victimization with massive misuse of power and authority. Since 2022, all major investigating agencies of Pakistan have registered innumerable criminal cases against me, my wife, my family members and anyone affiliated with Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI). Police, FIA, NAB, and ACE quite unfortunately have very conveniently provided their forum to political adversaries for score settling and registering baseless, groundless and fabricated cases against me and the members of PTI. Thousands have been arrested, threatened, tortured and compelled to part ways with PTI. Many are still facing false cases and are Incarcerated for the principle stand they have taken for not abandoning/leaving in the party.
It is Indeed shocking to mention that needy 250 cases alone have been registered against me during the past two years. It is imperative to highlight that today marks the 495th day of mynd detention in prison and during these days too innumerable criminal cases were registered with the sole agenda to prolong the period of my detention.
Since the day I have left the Prime Minister office, series of prosecutions were initiated, all of which have collapsed one way or the other, Foreign funding case, Cipher, Iddat and Nikkah, Toshakhana, and 09th May cases are prime examples where perusal of bail granting orders and final judgments prove it convincingly that I along with my family members and party members are absolutely innocent and are being politically victimized.
The instant prosecution is just another example and offshoot of the ongoing political victimization.
Simply because of my refusal to cave the political arena I am being repeatedly prosecuted by various agencies of Pakistan so that I may ultimately succumb to the illegal demands. Since 2022, the country has witnessed the most ruthless abuse of power and authority where PTI members have been silenced and thus experienced the worst aggression and torture at the hands of the State.
The evidence that has come on the record is strongly indicative that the instant Reference has been filed on the instructions of political opponents to further prolong our agony end process of incarceration. Since the day I left cricket of diverted all my focus energy and time for social work.
Many philanthropists joined hands and above all the citizens of Pakistan donated generously placing their trust and confidence in the good work initiated. Healthcare and education were the two main sectors which remained the primary focus. One such initiative was the Al-Qadir University Project Trust solely created as a noble cause for the under privileged students in the remote areas of the cavalry who could receive absolutely free quality education. The vindictiveness has turned so brute that it has not even spared the social work and has included this project as part of the prosecution with ulterior motives The evidence that has come on the record clearly proves that no benefit, personal gain, undue advantage has ever been taken by myself, spouse or any other family member.
The instant prosecution is also being conducted by the NAB authorities and is again motivated with ulterior motives and malafides. The evidence recorded establishes convincingly that absolutely no offence has been committed under the NAB taws and no dishonest gains whatsoever have accrued to me and my wife. It is known to all and sundry that I have been actively involved in social work for the betterment of society at large. The creation of two Shaukat Khanum Trust Hospitals (Lahore and Peshawar) and the third one in completions stage in Karachi are the clearest indictors of the valuable contributions in the healthcare sector, Additionally, NUM L which provides 90% free education has also earned reputation in the academic arena end is one of the most well renowned, reputable project in Pakistan. Shaukat Khanum Hospital is state of the art cancer hospital and provide 75% free of charge treatment to the cancer patients and has international accreditation by the Joint Commission International a foreign body and operates under their certificate. Similarly, Al-Qadir Trust is geographically established for the benefit of students in the remote and rural areas providing them opportunity to grow and excel in life. The stated projects are functioning independently by dedicated professional teams without any questions or fingers pointed towards its operation in any manner. The people of Pakistan contribute in donate generously without any insecurities or apprehension as they have full trust and confidence in the social work initiated by myself and the team. The honesty, integrity, credibility in its creation and functioning has remained unquestionable at every level.
There is a visible haste on the part of the NAB authorities to prosecute me Lind my wife alone to the exclusion as many as six co-accused named in the NAB Reference. Without full canvas, prosecuting us alone is unjustified, illogical and unfair to say the least. Quite shockingly, the NAB authorities with malicious intent have decided to embark upon the instant prosecution which as per record is a closed transaction in 2020 by virtue of the Executive Board Meeting (EBM)of the NAB which is also a vailable on judicial file. Moreover, the Al-Qadir 'University Trust is neither a ghost project nor there is any embezzlement misappropriation undue benefit or personal gain of even a trivial nature accruing to me or my wife. The NAB CIT team visited the project and found it very much operational and Functional with distinguished faculty members (Affiliated with GCU Lahore) inculcating knowledge to the students at the campus.
We are absolutely innocent and are repeatedly being prosecuted by various investigating agencies of Pakistan, all major prosecutions at the time of recording of the statement have resulted in total collapse and miserably failed to establish our guilt. Previously, I have been prosecuted for Toshakhana gifts, together both of us were prosecuted for marriage during iddat 09th May cases in Lahore and Rawalpindi, and additionally I was prosecuted for Cipher case.
Present case is a classical example of political victimization as donation to a welfare trust has been presented as my personal gain whereas l have established the trust university in a backward area of Pakistan with an intention to provide quality education on science, arts and Alfa of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) to poor and deserving people so they may become on front line for the betterment of nation and country. No loss has been caused to the state exchequer by my any act.
No monetary benefit has been derived by me, my family, my relatives and near and dear one's from this trust."
20. Similarly, question No. 76 was replied by the accused Bushra Imran in the following terms.
"Q.76 Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you?
Ans. I have been implicated in the instant case by Mite of relationship with Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi who is my husband and victim of political victimization since his removal from the office of Prime Minister of Pakistan as a result of conspiracy for the ouster of his government Being wife, l have not been spared in the ongoing political victimization and have already faced prosecution's initiated by the NAB in which I alongwith my husband were not only maliciously prosecuted but also erroneously convicted, the sentence of which stood suspended by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad. The NAB Authorities after the first prosecution for Toshakhana gifts in violation of the NAB laws also attempted to file second NAB Reference on the some allegations under the Toshakhana policy, The NAB unfortunately is playing as a tool in the hands of political adversaries and has provided as forum to politically victimize me and my husband repeatedly.
The instant prosecution is also being conducted by the NAB authorities and is again motivated with ulterior motives and malafide. The evidence recorded establishes convincingly that absolutely no offence has been committed under the NAB laws and no dishonest gains whatsoever have accrued to us. My husband as known to all and sundry has been actively involved in social work for the betterment of society at large. The Shaukat Khanum Trust Hospital and the NUML are two of the most well renowned, reputed projects in the field, to date, the stated two projects are functioning independently by dedicated professional teams without any question or angers pointed forwards its operation in any manner. The honesty, credibility in its creation and functioning has remained unquestionable at every level. The people or Pakistan have throughout been donating generously towards these causes without any insecurities, apprehension reposing complete trust and confidence in the projects.
The evidence that has come on the record is strongly indicative that the instant Reference has been filed on the instructions of the political opponents to further prolong air agony end process of incarceration. The evidence further establishes that like previous acts of philanthropy for the betterment of citizens of Pakistan, the Al-Qadir University Project Trust has solely been created as a noble cause far the under privileged in the remote area of the country providing free of cost parity education. The evidence that Eras come on Vie record further proves that no benefit, personal Barn, undue advantage has ever been taken by myself or spouse crony other family member.
We are absolutely innocent and are repeatedly being prosecuted by various investigating agencies of Pakistan, all major prosecutions at the time of recording of the statement have resulted in total collapse and miserably failed to establish our guilt. Previously, my husband has been prosecuted for Toshakhana gifts together both of us were prosecuted for marriage during iddat, 09th May cases in Lahore and Rawalpindi, my husband was prosecuted for Cipher case also.
Tire instant prosecution is continuation of the ongoing process of political victimization.'
21. Both the accused did not opt either to appear as witness to make statement u/s 340(2) Cr.P.C nor to produce any evidence in defence. Hence, the case was fixed for final argument.
22. Mr. Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz learned Special Prosecutor NAB opened the arguments that M/s Bahria Town Karachi purchased State land in the District Malir Karachi at a very low price in connivance with the concerned authorities but the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered the Bahria Town to pay fair price of the land in the public interest and it was agreed that M/s Bahria Town will pay Rs. 460 billion in order to legalize the said transfer of land: that for the deposit of said price an account was Opened in the Supreme Court of Pakistan with title 'the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan': that in the meantime, the NCA UK seized the amount 190 million (GBP) of Bahria Town under the Proceeds of Crime Act and the said amount was freezed by the orders of the Court of Westminster in UK; that the ARU Pakistan established under the chairmanship of Mirza Shahzad Akbar approached the NCA and got this amount transferred to the account of Supreme Court of Pakistan in order to adjusted the liability due against the M/s Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. with approval of the Cabinet against the Rules of Business 1973; that the said Illegal transaction was made to give undue advantage to the M/s Bahria Town and Malik Riaz and family; that as a return of this undue favor, 458 kanals land was got transferred in the name of Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari SAPM for the Overseas Pakistanis, against a sham and ghost trust namely the Al-Qadir University Project Trust which came into being long after the transfer of the said land; that the price of said land was paid by the M/s Bahria Town in the shape of donations, illegally; that the so called Al-Qadir University Project Trust was created against the law without observing the legal formalities; that the Deed of Confidentiality was signed and executed against the law in order to give undue favour to Malik Riaz and family; that a public office holder cannot create trust on the State land for his favored or even for a noble cause like Masjid, Madrisa, education and health etc; that the Law and Justice Division, Finance Division, or Ministry of Foreign Affairs etc were not consulted in this regard: that later on the said 458 kanal land was got transferred in the name of newly established trust illegally: that afterwards land measuring 240 kanais was got transferred in the name of Mst. Farhat Shahzadi a front person of both the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran, the price of which was also paid by the M/s Bahria Town as Met. Farhat Shahzadi could not produced any money trail for (his transaction; that co-accused Bushra Imran signed the acknowledgement deed of donation being a trustee and a beneficial owner of the trust illegally; that amount 171,159 million (GBP). was public money which should have been repatriated in the account of the State of Pakistan but with malafide got deposited in the designated account of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Order to settle personal liability of M/s Bahria Town.
23. He relied upon the catena of esteemed case law in order to substantiate the prosecution version i.e. PLD 2019 Islamabad 566 titled 'Dan Gunnar Bjarne Anderson vs. the Federation of Pakistan and 3 others', 1989 PSC 995 [Supreme court of India] titled 'R.S Nayak vs. AR. Antulay and another:, PLD 2022 Lahore 684 titled 'Muhammad Wajid and others vs. the State and others', I.L.R. (1897) Bom. 517 titled 'Imperatrix vs. Appaji bin Yadavrao', AIR 1960 Supreme Court 548 titled 'C.I Emden versus State of Uttar Pradesh', MANU/MG/0081/2014 titled 'L.R. Mithran vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Lahore High Court, Lahore writ petition No. 58123/2022 titled 'Salman Mushtaq vs. Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc', PLD 2003 Lahore 669 titled 'Syed Javed Iqbak Bokhari vs. the NAB', AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 416 (Full Bench) titled 'Tirlochan Singh vs Karnail Singh and another', AIR 1993 PUNJAB 516 titled 'Mool Chand vs. Rulia Ram Panna Lal and another', 2021 MLD 1546 titled 'Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari vs. the State', 2016 PCr.LJ 1737 [Sindh] titled the Deputy Director, Intelligence vs. Sajid Hussain', 2011 MLD 1202 [Karachi] titled Murad Usmani and another vs. the State', PLD 2006 Karachi 397 titled Zaheer Hussain vs. the State', 2005 PCr.LJ 1566 titled 'Muhammad Munaf vs. the State', 2004 CrL.I 1086 [Supreme Court of Pakistani titled 'Muhammad Ali etc vs. the State', 2004 PCr.LJ 102 [Karachi) titled Javed lqbal vs. the State', 2003 MLD 194 [Karachi] titled 'Abdul Majid vs. the State', PLD 1997 SC 545 titled "Imtiaz Ahmed and another vs. the State etc', PLD 2003 Karachi 127 titled 'Hussain Bux and others vs. the State', PLD 2009 Supreme Court 367 titled 'Kamaluddin Qureshi vs Ali International CO.', PLD 2007 Quetta 155 titled The State through Regional Director and others vs Faze! Muhammad and others', 2009 YLR 2049 [Karachi] titled 'DODO vs. the State', 2019 YLR 'Lahore Multan Bench)] titled 'Aziz Ahmed vs. Syed Irshad Hussain Shah and 18 others', PLD 2007 Supreme Court 571 titled 'Fazal Dad vs. Col. (Rtd.) Ghulam Muhammad Malik and others', 2019 SCMR 372 titled 'Malik Din vs. Chairman NAB and another', 2006 SCMR 1334 titled 'Fazal ullah Siddiqui vs. the State', PLD 1993 Karachi 805 titled 'Hafiz Mustafa Khan and 9 others vs. Haji BUNDOO Khan and 2 others', Peshawar High Court, Peshawar writ petition No. 2924-P/2021 with IR titled 'Durre Shehwar vs. the NAB', and 2018 SCMR 2128 titled 'Khawaja Muhammad Asif vs. Muhammad Usman Dar and others'.
24. Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi learned Deputy Prosecutor General NAB argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of any doubt therefore, both the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced u/s 9(a) (ii), (iv), (vi) and (xii) of the NAO, 1999 punishable under section 10 of the NAO, 1999 and Sr No. 2 of the schedule thereto.
25. Conversely, Mr. Zaheer Abbas Advocate learned defence counsel on behalf of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi accused argued that this is an open and shut case as previously this case was closed at its inception as previously Yasir Lehman was appointed Inquiry Officer/I.O in this case but later on he was replaced by Mian Umar Nadeem with malafide, that instant case is hit by the recent decision made by apex Court; that no personal, financial of monetary gain was drawn by the accused; that property was in the name of Al-Qadir University from the day one which is not a sham or ghost trust and which is very much in a existence with a sizeable number of students and faculty members etc, that it was a civil nature transaction which has been converted into criminal liability deliberately for ulterior motives; that Graham Orr sender of the email pertaining to the transaction on behalf of the NCA was neither examined as a witness nor his status or capacity was determined; that Mr. Usman Anwar Country head of the NCA In Pakistan was not produced in the witness box; that although PW-32 Zubaida Jalal and PW-31 Mr. Pervaiz Khattak were produced by the prosecution yet their testimony is hardly of any value for the prosecution; that Hassan Nawaz Sharif sold his property i.e. One Hyde Park to Ali Riaz Malik with hefty, consideration but ho was never investigated for his wrong doing; that the prosecution deliberately withheld certain substantial documents; that this is politically motivated case planted against Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi accused by his political adversaries; that the Cabinet meeting was held under the law and passed the agenda unanimously without any dissenting note by any of the members of the Cabinet, hence no provision of the Rules of Business 1973 was violated; that Mst. Farhat Shahzadi accused had nothing to do with Imran Ahmed Khan accused or his spouse Bushra Imran accused nor she was their front person; that the amount deposited by the NCA in the account of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was invested in profitable schemes which earned heavy profits and no loss to the National Exchequer was ever caused due to this transaction; that no cognizable offence under the NAO, 190 is made out; that the NAB has no authority to challenge the Cabinet decision; that the Cabinet passed the decision in good faith in public interest; that both the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran are subject to discriminatory treatment as rest of the Cabinet members were not proceeded against the rule of 'collective responsibility'; that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused, therefore, he is liable to be acquitted in this case.
26. He relied upon the esteemed case law in support of his assertions i.e. 2017 PCr.LJ 854 [Islamabad] titled 'Syed Hamid Saeed Kazmi and others vs. the State', 2002 YLR 3433 [Lahore] titled 'Mian Manzoor Ahmad Watto vs. the State', 2003 YLR 406 [Lahore] titled Mushtaq Ahmed Malik vs. Muhammad Sunawar Choudhary', Presidential Reference No. 01 of 2011, PLD 2005 Supreme Court 63 titled Pir Mazhar ul Haq and others vs. the State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Islamabad', and PLD 2021 Islamabad 350 titled 'Muhammad Masood Chishti vs. Chairman NAB and 4 others'.
27. Barrister Salman Safdar Advocate learned defence counsel on behalf of Bushra Imran accused argued that both the accused have been made subject to political victimization by their political rivals; that as many as 280 cases have been registered against Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi including the Cipher case, the Iddat case, the Toshakhana 1 and Toshakhana 2 cases etc in which he has been acquitted from the Courts of law 40x false and fabricated cases have been initiated against Bushra Imran; that no criminality against both the accused have been proved; that the charge is self contradictory and there is no proof of aiding and abetting so far as Bushra Imran accused is concerned; that the prosecution has changed its previous stance at the time of conclusion of trial; that no actus reus, mens rea, and malafide is proved on behalf of both the accused; that this is a fishing expedition managed against both the accused just to settle personal grudges; that the accused Bushra Imran is a house wife and parda observing lady and she has nothing to do with the commission of crime, therefore no question arises for her alleged aiding and abetting in this case; that the accused is the favorite child of law and the prosecution has failed to prove its case within the four corners of law and there is hardly any chance of conviction in this case, therefore, she is liable to be acquitted.
28. Mr. Muhammad Usman Riaz Gill Advocate learned defence counsel on behalf of Bushra Imran accused emphasized that the Government/State of Pakistan has nothing to do with the amount freezed by the NCA UK and subsequently deposited in the account of Supreme Court of Pakistan; that Government of Pakistan never made any effort for the withdrawal of this amount from the account of Supreme Court of Pakistan and that Bushra Imran accused has nothing to do with the said prosecution, hence, she is liable to be acquitted.
29. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi also appeared in person on the rostrum and argued that he is a world known cricket champion and a famous philanthropist who is running various well known charity institutions i.e. the Shaukat Khanum Memorial cancer Hospital, the Namal University Mianwali and the Al-Qadir University Project Trust etc that majority of the people of Pakistan repose confidence in him and he is leader of the largest political party of Pakistan i.e. Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaf (PTI); that he has been made subject to political victimization by his political rivals; that he has nothing to do with the instant transaction regarding the NCA; that he held the Cabinet meeting and got the agenda approved in the public interest and in good faith and that he has committed no offence whatsoever therefore, he and wife Bushra Imran are liable to be acquitted in this case.
30. I have heard the arguments at length, scanned the record and appreciated the evidence thoroughly with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
31. The chronology of the vital fasts of this case is detailed as under:- I. 04.05.2018:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan by 2:1 majority determined that the grant of the State land to the Malir Development Authority (MDA), its exchange with the land of M/s Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd and anything done pursuant to it was unlawful and void ab initio, vide its esteemed judgment dated 04.05.2018 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 376-K of 2014 in the SMC No. 16 of 2011 available at page 3200 onward Vol-X of the instant Reference.
II. 27.06.2018:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 27.06.2018 available at pages 678 to 579 of Vol-Ill ordered the opening of an account of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as narrated in the deposition of PW-09 Hafeez ur Rehman Section Officer (Banking) Ministry of Finance Islamabad. Copy of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is available at page 679 Vol-III and copy of the letter to the same effect is at page 678 of the same Volume.
III. 05.09.2018:- The Cabinet through its decision dated 05.09.2018, copy Ex.PW-3/2 got exhibited in the statement of PW-3 Jamil Ahmed Section Officer Cabinet Division Islamabad available at page 264 of Vol-III. Vide this document, the Cabinet approved establishment of the Assets Recovery Unit
(ARU) for the recovery at unlawful assets abroad, Mirza Shahzad Akbar the then Special Advisor to the Prime Minister (SAPM) (since PO) was made its Chairmen.
IV. 19.09.2018:- Vide notification dated 19.09.2018, copy Ex.PW-3/5 available at page 269 of Vol-Ill got exhibited in the statement of PW-III Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division, it was ordered that the ARU be housed in the PM office Islamabad.
V. 06.11.2018:- A notification was issued setting out the composition of the Terms of Reference
(TORS) of the ARU which also includes that the ARU shall report its performance to the PM. Copies of these documents are available at pages 270 to 272 and 351 of Vol-II, which were got exhibited in the statement of PW-3 Jamil Ahmed S.O Cabinet Division.
VI. 19.11.2018:- A letter was written to Mr. Osman Ahmed the Country Manager National Crime Agency (NCA) Islamabad by Manzoor Ahmed kiani PW-18 Secretary ARU with the subject "Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds for Purchase of Prime Property in London known as 1-Hyde Park for 42.5 million (GBP) as deposed by PW-4 Mohsin Aman Deputy Secretary ARU, copy of which exhibited as PW-4/6 is available al page 200 Vol-I.
VII. 26.11.2018:- in a subsequent letter, PW-16 Manzoor Ahmed Kiani the Secretary ARU provided details of ongoing inquiries/investigations against Malik Riaz Hussain as "under progress at Anti- Corruption Establishment, Punjab". This letter was got exhibited as Exh.PW-4/7 available at page 201 Vol-I, during the deposition of PW-4 Mohsin Aman the Deputy Secretary ARU.
VIII. 14.12.2018:- An Account Freezing Order (AFO) was passed by the District Judge at Westminster Magistrate's Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002. The AFO is related to the amount 20 million (GBP) which was being transferred by Mubashra AIi Malik wife of Ali Riaz Malik from her personal account in the UAE to the company account of the Premier Investments Global Ltd a BVI registered company of which Mubashra Malik and her husband Ali Riaz were currently ultimate beneficial owners. Copy of the note for the PM regarding account freezing orders and unsigned Deed of Confidentiality is Exh.PW-3/9, got exhibited in the deposition of PW-3 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division which documents are available at pages 289A to 317 Vol-II.
IX. 21.03.2019:- Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd Karachi agreed to pay RS. 460 billion as the price of land in issue. The offer was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan inter alia on the terms that down payment of Rs. 25 billion and subsequent payments at identified intervals, all payments were to be made within seven years from September 01, 2019. Copy of the order dated 21.03.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court of Pakistan in the CMA No. 8758 of 2018 etc is available at pages 3183 to 3198 Vol-X.
X. 04.04.2019 to 15.04.2019:- The land measuring 419 kanals 143 marlas and 58 sq.ft was purchased by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd and was transfered in the name of Al-Qadir University Trust through (marfat) Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari (PO) from various sellers against the consideration of Rs.
60,350,000/-. Copies of mutations along with challans are Exh.PW-13/3 to Exh.PW-13/10 available at pages 1350 to 1389 Vol-V, It is pertinent to point out here that Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari accused was holding the portfolio of SAPIVI during this period as per notification Exh.PW-8/5 at page 423 of Vol-II and he was de-notified vide notification Exh.PW-8/13 available at page 484 Vol-II. The documents Exh.PW-13/3 to Ex.PW-13/10 were got exhibited during the testimony of PW-13 Rizwan Azam Assistant Director Land Records (ADLR) District Jhelum.
XI. 18.04.2019:- The ARU informed the NCA that the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd had reached an agreement with the respective Provincial Government, which had graciously been accepted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its orders dated 13,03.2019 and 21.03.2019 passed in the Civil Misc.
Application No. 8758/2018 and application No, 376-K/2014. The ARU also forwarded the copy of the decisions to the NCA and that the investigation of the Bahria Town Karachi project had been held in abeyance by the NAB on the directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Copy of letter written by the ARU to the NCA is Exh.PW-4/8 available at pages 2002 and 2003 Vol-I, got exhibited in the statement of PW-4 Mohsin Aman Deputy Secretary ARU Islamabad.
XII. 19.04.2019 to 30.04.2019:- The land measuring 38 kanals 4 merles was purchased by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd and was transferred in the name of Al-Qadir University Trust through (marfat)
Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari (PO) accused from different sellers against the consideration of Rs.5700000/-. Copies of mutations along with the challan are Exh.PW-13/11 to Exh.P1V-13/12 available at pages 1390 to 1397 Vol-V tendered in the deposition of PW-13 Rizwan Azam ADLR District Jhelum.
XIII. May 2019:- In a meeting in Islamabad, it was decided that a trust by the name of 'Al-Qadir Trust' to be created and accused Imran Ahmed Khan was nominated as Chairman of the trust.
Copy of the Board resolution is Exh.PW-142 which is available at page 1016 of Vol-IV produced during the deposition of PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Mohrar of the office of the Joint sub-Registrar, Islamabad.
XIV. 11.07.2019:- Accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) and accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) visited Imran Ahmed than accused in his house at Banigala. Copies of the entry register of the visitors of the PM house Banigala Exh.PW-11/2 are available at pages 922, 926 and 927 of Vol-IV, got exhibited in the statement of PW-11 Mushtaq Ahmed ASI/Moharar PM house and also got confirmed by the PW-18 Muhammad Ashraf S.I PS Barakahu.
XV. 12.08.2019:- Pursuant to an application dated August 08, 2019, the NCA obtained further eight AFOs in relation to money held in the accounts of the co-accused Ali Riaz, his other family members and associated companies of the co-accused Ali Raza and his wife said to be currently ultimate beneficial owners. The total value of the frozen sum was C140 million (GBP). Copy of the note for the PM regarding account freezing orders Exh.PW-3/9 is available at page 280 Vol-II tendered in the statement of Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division.
XVI. 06.11.2019:- Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) signed the Confidentiality Deed, in which the designated account number of the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan was mentioned and submitted it to the NCA. This deed was provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) which was received by it from the NCA via email, copy of email is Exh.PW-2/2 and copy of Deed of Confidentiality is Exh.PW- 2/2 which are available at pages 400 and 408 of Vol-III and got exhibited in the statement of PW-2 Ali Shahid Director Spokesperson MOFA. Copy of confirmation of email is Exh.PW-17/2 which is available at page 3097 Vol-X got exhibited in the statement of PW-17 Shafqat Mehmood Director Investigation NAB Rawalpindi. Copy of the letter written by the Deputy Director (Coordination)
International Cooperation Wing NAB Islamabad to the Additional Director (Staff) NAB Rawalpindi Exh.PW-19/1 is available at page 3026 Vol-IX got exhibited In the statement of PW-19 Sehrish Ghulam the Deputy Director International Cooperation Wing NAB Islamabad.
XVII. 29.11.2019:- An amount of 102.29 million (GBP) was remitted in the account of Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan from the NCA. Original details of FCY (Foreign Currency) remittance Exh.PW-25/3 is available at page 1950 Vol-VII got exhibited in the statement of PW-25 Syed Gohar Ali Senior Vice President (SVP) NBP Head Office Karachi.
XVIII. 02.12.2019:- Accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) initiated a note for the Prime Minister with a subject 'Account Freezing Orders (AFOs) and Repatriation of Funds to Pakistan in Mr. Ahmed Ali Riaz & Family and Messers Bahria Town Pvt Ltd". He got approval from Imran Ahmed Khan accused who also gave instructions for placing the said Note as additional agenda without prior circulation, in violation the Rules of Business, 1973. Copy of note for the Prime Minister along with unsigned Deed of Confidentiality Exh.PW-3/9 is available at page 280 got exhibited by PW-3 Jamil Ahmad SO Cabinet Division, Islamabad.
XIX. 03.12.2019:- The matter was presented, in camera, in Cabinet meeting as Additional Item No. 2.
The Cabinet approved paragraph 10 of the "Note for the Prime Minister". Furthermore, as per decision of the Cabinet Committee, the Cabinet directed the Cabinet Secretary to seal the note.
Minutes of the Cabinet meeting dated 03.12.2019 and memorandum issued on 06.12.2019 Exh.PW- 3/10 are available at pages 289A to 317 Vol-II produced during the deposition of PW-03 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division.
XX. 03.12.2019:- The NCA issued a press release announcing that it had agreed to a sum of 190 million (GBP) settlement as a result of its investigation into Riaz Hussain Malik. The settlement included a UK property valued at approximately 50 million (GBP) and all the funds in the frozen accounts. The NA announced that the assets would be returned to the State of Pakistan. Copy of the Deed of Confidentiality along with schedule and press release etc Exh.PW-2/2 is available at pages 403 to 411, Vol-II got exhibited in the statement of PW-4 Mohsin Aman Deputy secretary ARU.
XXI. 03.12.2019:- An amount of 34.36 million (GBP) was remitted in the account of the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan bringing the total amount to 136.66 million (GBP). The original details of FCY remittances Exh.PW-25/3 are available at page 1950 Vol-VII tendered in evidence during the deposition of Syed Gohar Ali Senior Vice President NBP Head Office Karachi.
XXII. 26.12.2019:- By virtue of a trust deed dated 26.12.2019, a trust namely the Al-Qadir University Project was registered by Mr. Babar Awan, and Imran Ahmed Khan accused was appointed the Chairman of the trust and a trustee along with three other trustees namely Babar Awan, Bushra Khan accused, and Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari (PO) Copy of the original trust deed Exh.PW-14/3 is available at pages 1017 to 1028 Vol-IV produced in the statement of PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar office of the Joint sub-Registrar Islamabad.
XXIII. 22.04.2020:- A letter was written to the Joint sub-Registrar, Islamabad by Imran Ahmed Khan accused informing him that Mr. Babar Awan and Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari (PO) had been removed as trustee of the trust, in violation of Section 46 of the Trusts Act, 1882 and Article 13 of the original Trust Deed. Copy of letter dated 22.04.2020 Exh.PW-14/4 is available at page 1029 Vol-IV tendered in the evidence of the PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar.
XXIV. 25.04.2020:- The original trust deed was amended on 25.04.2020. Copy of amended trust deed of AQUPT Exh.PW-14/5 is available at page 1030 Vol-IV tendered during the statement of PW- 14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar.
XXV. 10.07.2020:- The amended trust deed which is the second trust deed was filed to amend the instrument/deed of AQUPT made on 26.12.2019. The name of trust was changed to the AI-Qadir University Project Trust from the Al-Qadir University Project, and accused Imran Ahmed Khan became the settlor/founder of the trust. Substantial changes were made to the aims and objectives, etc of the trust. The said acts were in violation of the settled principles of the trust laws.
Accused Imran Ahmed Khan also became the lifetime Chairman of the trust. The registered office was changed, and changes were made to the liquidation/dissolution provision. Certified copies of second amendment in the Trust Deed Exh.PW-14/6 is available at page 1032 Vol-IV got exhibited in the statement of PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar.
XXVI. 22.01.2021:- Zulfiqar Abbas Bokhari (PO) transferred 458 kanals 4 marlas and 58 sqft land to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust through attorney Talib Hussain. Copy of mutation along with challan Exh.PW-13/3 available at pages 1398 to 1409 Vol-V were got exhibited in the statement of PW-13 Rizwan Azam ADLR Jhelum.
XXVII. 21.02.2021:- The total sum of Rs. 285,000,000/- was transferred into the account of Al-Qadir University Project Trust from the account of Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. Copy of details of donations to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust Exh.PW-5/5 is at page 244 Vol-I got exhibited in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Al-Qadir University Project Trust.
XXVIII. 24.03.2021:- An "Acknowledgment of Donation" deed was entered between the accused Bushra Imran Khan and the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. It acknowledges that the accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) also financed and got constructed the building of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust, the value of which is Rs. 284,03,000/- as got assessed by the management of Al-Qadir University Project Trust through a private evaluator. Further, Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) also provided various items such as furniture and fixtures etc worth Rs. 5149000/- and computers worth Rs. 648500/- to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust. Acknowledgment of Donation deed in original Exh.PW-515 is available at page 244 Vol-I got exhibit in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO.
XXIX. 29.07.2021 in 28.10.2021:- A total of 240 kanals of land worth Rs. 530 million situated in Monza Mohra Noor, Islamabad was transferred in the name of accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) from the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. through accused Ahmed Ali Riaz CEO Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. through oral mutations, Copies of reports regarding mutations, mutations and resolutions of the Bahria Town regarding transfer or land Exh.PW10/2 and Exh,PW-105 are available at pages 852 to 921 got exhibited in the statement of NV-10 Abbas Goraya Pabivari Circle Mohra Noor, Islamabad.
XXX. 18.12.2021:- Two trustees namely Arif Nazir Butt and Farhat Shabzadi (PO) were added to the Al-Oadir University Project Trust. Copy of the Al-Qadir University Endowment Fund Trust Exh.PW-5/4 is available at page 1525 Vol-V got exhibited in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO.
XXXI. 14.03.2022:- A new trust namely the Al-Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust was registered with the sub-Registrar, Sohawa. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan was settlor/founder of the said trust and the accused Bushra Imran, accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) and Asti Nazir Butt as trustees. Although the deed stated that the accused Imran Ahmed Khan contributed Rs. 15 million towards the corpus of the trust, yet the amount was actually transferred from the account of the Al-nadir University Project Trust. Copy of this document Exh.PW-5/1 is available at pages 1488 to 1507 of Vol-V got exhibited in the deposition of FW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO.
XXXII. 11.05.2022:- An amount of 34.49 million remitted in the account of Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan, bringing it to the total of 171.159 million (GBP). The original details of FCY remittances Exh.PW-25/3 are available at page 1950 Vol-VII, got exhibited in the statement of PIN-25 Syed Gohar Ali, SVP NBP Head Office Karachi.
XXXIII. 14.08.2022:- The Cabinet. Committee, on the instructions of the Cabinet, decided to de-seal the note for the Prime Minister, Copy of minutes of the Cabinet sub-Committee meeting dated 14.06.2022 Exh.PW-31/8 is available at pages 341 to 343 Vol-III got exhibited by PW-3 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division in his deposition.
XXVII. 15.07.2022:- The acting Chairman NAB delegated the powers to authorize an inquiry to the Director General NAB, The original letter by the Acting Chairman NAB Exh.PW-35/1 is available at page 1 Vol-I, got exhibited in the statement of PW-35/I.O Mian Umar Nadeem.
XXXV. 15.07.2022:- Inquiry authorized by the DG (NAB) and marked to Mr. Yasir Rehman Deputy Director/I.O NAB Rawalpindi. Original letter Exh.PW-35/2 is available at page Z of the Vol-I, got exhibited by PW-35/I.O Mien Umar Nadeem in his statement.
XXXVI. 12.08.2022:- Summary for the Cabinet, copy available at pages 362 and 363 Vol-Ill with the authorization of the PM inter alia reads as under: "a) Since the amount involved in the case, prima facie, belongs to the State of Pakistan and not Bahria Town, therefore, Ministry of Law and Justice through Attorney General of Pakistan may immediately approach the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for transfer of the funds from Bahria Town, Karachi's account to the Central Amount No. 1 of the Federal Government."
XXXVII. 07.12.2022:- With The transfer of Mr. Yasir Rehan, Mian Umer Nadeem was directed to continue with inquiry proceedings. Original letter Exh.PW-35/3 is available at page 3 Vol-I got exhibited by PW-35/I.O Mian Umer Nadeem in his statement.
XXXVIII. 20.04.2023:- The inquiry was upgraded into investigation by the Chairman NAB vide delegations of powers in the name of DG NAB Rawalpindi, original letter Exh.PW-35/4 is available at page 4 Vol-I got exhibited by the PW-35/I.O Mian Umar Nadeem in his deposition.
XXXIX. 28.04.2023:- Regarding authorization of investigation to Mian Umar Nadeem, original letter Exh.PW-35/5 is available at page 5 of Vol-I got exhibited by PW-35/I.O Mian Umar Nadeem in his statement.
XL. 23.11.2023:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Civil Misc. Application No. 8758/18 etc available at page 3109 of Vol-10 inter alia observed as under: "16. it is unfortunate that without seeking permission of the Supreme Court amounts were narrated into its account and the Supreme Court was unnecessarily involved with money detected by the NCA, which probably were proceeds at criminal activity which was detected by the NCA, seized and then frozen by AFOs. The other persons/entities to whom notices were sent (except Mashreq Bank PSO) did not come forward to explain why monies were sent from their accounts to the account of the Supreme Court. Apparently, these monies were used to offset Bahira Town Stated liability, bringing to mind the team 'rubbing Peter to pay Paul'. Therefore, the amount received from abroad end the markup earned thereon be remitted to the Government of Pakistan. The Registrar of the Supreme Court and the National Bank of Pakistan shall do the needful in this regard".
XLI. 09.01.2024:- Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated 23.11.2023, an amount of Rs. 54.5 billion was transferred to the Federal Government and further, an amount of Rs. 41.2 billion was transferred to the Government of Sindh. Total amount transferred was RS. 95.7 billion.
32. Background of this case is that the CMA No 376-k of 2014 was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan alleging that the Malir Development Authority (MDA) was adjusting the Government land pursuant to the notification issued by the Board of Revenue, Sindh. It was alleged that the value of Government land was far higher than the value of private land it exchanged for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan notices the commission of sheer illegalities in a series of land transactions which resulted in the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd obtaining valuable Government land in exchange of private land of the Fess value owned by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited Karachi (BTLK).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 04.05.2016 declared the transfer of land by the MDA and its exchange with the land of the Bahria Town, against the law and void ab initio.
However, due to start of development work and creation of third party rights (allotees of BTLK), the apex Court observed that the land could be allotted to the Bahria Town afresh after determining the price, area and other terms and conditions and the Hon'ble Court requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute an Implementation Bench for implementation of the decision dated 04.05.2018 in letter and spirit, and the said Bench was constituted, accordingly. Copy of this esteemed order dated 04.05.2018 is at pages 3200 onward in Vol-X.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, after receiving offers/proposals from accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO), CEO and Director of the Bahria Town, vide order dated 27.06.2018 available at pages 678, 679 in Vol-Ill and reflected in the disposition of PW-9 Hafeez ur Rehman SO (Banking) Ministry of Finance, ordered for opening of an account by the Registrar Supreme Cowl of Pakistan.
Accordingly, the then Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan vide letter dated 11.07.2018 opened an account with title The Registrar SC of Pakistan' CRP 288-291/2018 having account No. 0474004151236163 in the National Bank of Pakistan, Foreign Office Branch, Islamabad for payment against the land, by the a Town Limited Karachi (BTLK).
34. On 21.03.2019, the Implementation Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in CMA No. 8758 of 2018 etc (in CMA No. 376-K of 2014), copy available at pages 3183 onward of Vol-X accepted the offer of Rs. 460 billion against 16,896 acre land pertaining to the Bahria Town, Karachi to be deposited in the designated account opened in the Supreme Court of Pakistan for the payment of price of land by the Bahria Town limited Karachi. A total sum of Rs. 460 billion price of land in issue was settled to be paid by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. Karachi, A sum of Rs. 25 billion and subsequent payments were to be made in instalments and all payments were to be made within seven years from September 1, 2019.
35. The Cabinet, in its meeting held on 05.09.2018 approved the establishment of the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) for implementation of recovery of Unlawful Assets Abroad. Thereafter, the ARU was established through a notification No.643(S)/2018-Cab dated 19th September 2018 under the Cabinet Division and was housed in the Prime Minister Office, Islamabad. Through this notification 3 x posts of the Experts and x post of Joint Secretary BS-20 to act as the Secretary ARU, were also created. Furthermore, the budget amounting to Rs. 67.591 million was also allocated to the ARU for the financial year 2018-19. It is pertinent to mention here that one post of the Deputy Secretary and 2 posts for Section Officers along with the subordinate staff were also sanctioned for the Assets Recovery Unit against which different Officers of the Government of Pakistan remained posted. The ARU was supervised by the accused Shahzad Akbar (SAW) (PO) being its Head Chairman who was directly responsible to the PM-and not to the Cabinet.
36. Shortly. Through another notification No. F.32/CM/2018.Cab dated 06th November, 2018 of the Cabinet Division. Exh.PW-316 available at pages 270 to 272 and 381 Val-II, got exhibited in the deposition of PW-3 Jameel Ahmed Section 4.E Officer Cabinet Division. The Composition and the Terms of Reference (TORs) were notified, with the main terms and conditions as under:- a. "The purpose of creation of ARV is to assist the relevant Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) i.e. NAB, FIA and FBR etc in detecting, tracing and pursuing repatriation of "unlawful foreign assets/properties bank accounts of Pakistani citizen f residents or legal persons with suspicion of money laundering or the assets falling tinder suspicion as proceeds of crime. b. Since the ARU is a notified government unit placed under She Cabinet Division and have sanctioned posts and budgetary allocations from the Government of Pakistan, if is established That any "unlawful asset abroad" repatriated as a result of assistance provided by the ARU belongs to the State of Pakistan."
37. Shortly after the creation of the Asset Recovery Unit, a letter was written to Mr. Osman Ahmed, the Country Manager, National Crime Agency (NCA), Islamabad on 19.11.2018 Exh.PW-4(6 page 200 Vol-I got exhibited in the statement of PW-4 Mohsin Aman Deputy Secretary ARU), by Manzoor A.
Kayani, the Secretary, ARU with subject "Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds for Purchase of Prime Property In London Known as 1-Hyde Park for GBP 42.5 Million" in which it was mentioned in paragraph 2 that:- "Malik Riaz Hussain, Ali Riaz Malik and' M/s Bahria Town Pvt Ltd were currently subject to pending investigations, inquires of corruption, money laundering, land grabbing and misuse of authority There were multiple investigation pending, against These individuals with various law Bureau, Federal investigation Agency and Anti-Corruption Establishment in Punjab.
38. In a subsequent letter with the same subject, dated 26.11.2018 (Exh.PW-4/7 page 201 Vol-I got exhibited in statement of the same witness i.e. Mohsin Aman), Manzoor A Kayan, the Secretary, ARU provided details of ongoing Inquiries Investigations against Malik Riaz Hussain, Chief Executive, Bahria Town Private Limited which ware under progress at Anti-corruption Establishment, Punjab, to Mr. Osman Ahmed, the Country Manager, of the NCA, Islamabad.
39. Soon afterwards on 144h December 2018, as per the Note for Prime Minister regarding account freezing orders (AFOs) Exh.PW-3/9 at page 280 of Vol-II, exhibited in the statement of PAY-3 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division, the NCA UK secured an Account Freezing Order (AFC), under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, of the amount about 20 million (GBP) In an investigation by the NCA related to the accused Malik Riaz Hussain, CEO and Director, Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited and his family. On 12 August, 2019, further eight Account Freezing Orders (AFOs) with funds totalling around the additional sum of 120 million (GBP) were also secured by the NCA in the same investigation against the accused Malik Riaz Hussain and his family as per copy of note for the PM, Exh.PW-3/9 available at page 280 Vol-II. All the Freezing Orders were related to the money held in the UK bank accounts by the accused Malik Riaz Hussain and his family. As per TORs of the ARU it was settled that on case to case basis approval of the Ministry of Law and Justice be obtained in order to avoid any 'conflict of interest' and violation of the Rules of Business, 1973, it is pertinent to mention here that under Schedule II, Serial 21 (4) of the Rules of Business, 1973 infer alia, it has been provided that all the matters related to the following, must be conducted through the Law and Justice Division: "Dealings and agreements with other countries and other international organizations in judicial end legal matters"
40. On 18 April, 2019 a letter Exh.PW-4/8 page 202 and 203 Vol-I was once again written to Mr. Osman Ahmed, the Country Manager, of the National Crime Agency, Islamabad in continuation of letter dated 19.11.2018 by Manzoor A. Kayani, the Secretary, ARU with subject "Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds for Purchase of Prime Property in London Known as 1-Hyde Park for GBP 42.5 Million "tendered during the deposition of PW-4 Mohsin Aman Deputy Secretary ARU and PW-16 Manzoor Ahmed Kiani Exh.PW-416 available at page No. 200 Vol-I. Astonishingly, in this letter Manzoor A. Kayani, the Secretary ARU was directed by the accused Mirza Shehzad Akbar (PO) to convey the following clarifications regarding Malik Riaz Hussain, Ali Riaz Malik and M/s Bahria Town on the basis of some developments in the investigations/proceedings against Malik Riaz Hussain, Ali Riaz Malik and the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. inter alts as under:- "a. 1 Hyde Park Placer London has been declared by Ali Riaz Malik, as being in his beneficial ownership in accordance with the applicable laws of Pakistan in respect of which a total sum of Rs. 166,428,740 (USD-1,370,200/-) was paid as tax on 29.06.2018, under The Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018 in June, 2018; b. The M/s Bahria Town, have reached an arrangements with respective provincial Government which has graciously been accepted by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide the orders dated 13.03.2019 and 21.03.2019 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.8758 of 2018 and in Civil Misc.
Application No. 376-K of 2014, decision of the Honorable Court is attached herewith which is self- explanatory; The investigations/proceedings, previously being conducted by the concerned law enforcement agency, i.e. The National Accountability Bureau, arising out or, relating to and or connected with the We Benne Town's Karachi 'project have been hold in abeyance by the National Accountability Bureau on the directions of The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan:
41. In the said letter, Manzoor A. Kayani, the Secretary, ARU was also directed to convey that the purchase of 1 Hyde Park property and its declaration under the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation.) Act 2018 cannot be probed in Pakistan under the above law. It is evident from the contents of this letter that accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) impliedly conveyed that there was no ongoing criminal inquiry investigation against Malik Riaz Hussain and Family in Pakistan, in order to affect the investigation proceedings of the NCA, UK against Malik Riaz Hussain and family. It is relevant to point out here that even on lath April, 2019 several cases against Malik Riaz Hussain and Bahria Town were under process in the NAB which were referred to by the JIT formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Fake Bank Accounts Cases which were intentionally not disclosed in this letter, maliciously to secure undue advantage for Malik Riaz Hussain and family.th th
42. On 02.12.2019, the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) initiated a 'Note for the Prime Minister" with subject "Account Freezing Orders (AFOs) and Repatriation of Fends to Pakistan in Mr. Ahmed Ali Riaz & Family and Messers Bahria Town (Private) Limited' got exhibited in the statement of PW-3 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division as Exh.PW-3/9 available at page 280 Vol-II.
43. In paragraphs 3 and 10 of the said note accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar manifested that M/s Bahria Town had entered into an agreement with the NA for transfer of 139.7 millions (GBP) into the Supreme Court of Pakistan account meant for settlement of private liability of the Bahria Town (Pvt). Ltd. but infect he mischievously and dishonestly pretended as if the said amount was being transferred in the Govt. Exchequer i.e. the State of Pakistan account. Furthermore, under this mischievous pretext he also got the exemption of all taxes on the said amount causing irreparable loss to the Government Exchequer to extend undue and illegal benefit to the Bahria Town Pvt Ltd as a result of connivance with it.
44. It is pertinent to mention here that rule 18(6) and 20(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 deal with the inclusion of cases in the Cabinet Meeting which are as follows:- "18(6)No case for inclusion the agenda of a meeting of the Cabinet shalt be accepted unless it reaches The Cabinet Secretary of least seven clear days in advance of the meeting: Provided that, if a case is urgent and is required to be taken up at short notice, the Secretary concerned will obtain approval of the Prime Minister for its inclusion in the agenda before it is transmitted to the Cabinet Secretary:"
"20(6) No case shall be discussed nor any issue raised unless the summary relating to it has first been circulated: Provided that, the Prime Minister may, in his discretion or at the representation of a Minister, dispense with this requirement if he is satisfied that the circumstances were such that a working paper could not be supplied and the matter could brook no delay."
45. The concerned departments / Divisions were also not consulted by the Cabinet in utter disregard of the provisions of the rules 12, 13, and 14 of the Rules of Business, 1973. PW-2 Ali Shahid Director Spokesperson of the MOFA has categorically stated that the MOFA was never consulted in this regard. As per deposition of PW-7 Section Officer Ministry of Law and Justice, no opinion and vetting of any legal instrument regarding repatriation of 190 million (GBP) was sought for from their ministry. Even the State Bank of Pakistan was never consulted as deposed by PW-1 Syed Ansar Hussain Deputy Director State Bank of Pakistan. Similarly, PW-09 Hafeez ur Rahman deposed that Ministry of Finance was also never consulted in this matter. Even the High Commission of Pakistan in UK was not consulted or informed as per deposition of PW-2 Ali Shandi Director Spokesperson of the MOFA. The deposition of PW-35/I.O Mian Umar Nadeem also substantiates this prosecution version effectively.
46. Subsequently, the matter was presented in camera, in Cabinet Meeting dated 03rd Dec, 2019 as addl. Item No. 2 with subject titled 'Account Freezing Orders (AFC's) and Repatriation of Funds to Pakistan in Mr. Ahmed Ali Riaz & Family and Messers Bahria Town (Private) Limited" wherein the Cabinet approved paragraph 10 of the "Note for the Prime Minister". Furthermore, as per decision of the Cabinet, the Cabinet directed the Cabinet Secretary to seal the Note. Copy of the minutes of the Cabinet meeting dated 03.12.2019 and memorandum issued on 06.12.2019 Exh.PW-3110 are available at pages 289-A to 3187 Vol-II substantiated by PW-3 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division during his deposition.
47. It is imperative to point out here that as per record provided by the MOFA, Mirza Shahzad Akbar
(PO) had already signed and submitted the Deed of Confidentiality to the NCA on 06.11.2019 on behalf of the Government of Pakistan i.e. before the Cabinet Meeting dated 03.12.2019. Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim also signed the Confidentiality Deed as a witness. It is astonishing that the designated account mentioned in the Deed of Confidentiality was the account of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan bearing IBAN No. PK20NBPA0474004151238163 meant for the payment of the land of Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited Karachi as a result of decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which infect was not the State of Pakistan's account. Accordingly, the amount from the foreign bank accounts earlier frozen through the AFOs, by the NCA was repatriated in this account before the Cabinet meeting dated 03-Dec-2019. The prosecution has substantiated its stance by tendering the documents le, Exh.PW-2/1 (email), Exh.PW-2/2 (Confidentiality Deed) available at pages 400 and 40S respectively in tendered in the statement of PW-12 Ali Shahid Director Spokesperson MOFA and other documents Exh.PW-17/2 page 3097 Vol- X and Exh.PW-19/1 page 3026 Vol-IX.
48. By virtue of the Trust Deed dated 2612,2019 certified copy of original trust deed Exh,PW-1413 available at pages 1017 to 1028 tendered in the statement of PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar, a trust namely the Al-Qadir University Trust" was got registered by Mr. Babar Awan. Accused Imran Khan Niazi became the Chairman of the trust and a trustee along with three other trustees namely Babar Awan, accused Bushra Khan, and accused Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (PO). The timings of the registration of the trust coincide with the timings of illegal favors extended to the co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain.
49. As per record of the Charity Registration Portal seized from Muhammad Saeed, District Officer (IPW&M) Jhelum, 2 x further trustees namely Arif Nazir Butt and accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) were also added in the Al-Qadir University Project Trust on 15-Jan-2022. It is proved by the record that shorty before becoming the trustee of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust, a total 240 Kanals of the prime land situated in Mouza Mohra Noor, Islamabad was transferred in the name of accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) from the Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited through accused Ahmed Ali Riaz, CEO, Bahria Town Pvt. Limited (PO) without any consideration.
50. The proof of payment of Rs. 532 million was sought from the Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited and the accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO), which was not provided. It is abundantly clear that the said land was transferred to the accused Farhat Shahzadi without any consideration to ostensibly hold the same on behalf of the accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Khan, trustees of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust, Farhat Shahzadi (PO) being the front person of the present accused could not produce the proof of her means and money trail of purchasing this huge chunk of land comprising 240 kanals against the consideration of Rs. 530 million. Copies of report regarding mutations and resolutions of the Bahria Town regarding transfer of land are Exh.PIN-10/2 and Exh.PW-10/3 available at pages 892 to 921 Volume-IV got exhibited in the statement of PW-10 Abbas Goraya Patwari Circle Mohra Noor Islamabad. Relation of Farhat Shahzadi with accused Bushra Imran and Imran Ahmed Khan is an open secret that she was also one of the trustees with accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra imran in the trust.
51. The defence has asserted that it is evident in the statement of PIN-10 Abbas Goraya, Patwari Circle Mohra Noor, Islamabad that the payments of transfer of land in favour of Farhat Shahzadi
(PO) were made respectively. This defence plea can hardly be relied upon because the said Patwari was the witness of mutation and not that of the transaction. In addition to that Farhat Shahzadi (PO) did not have any means to pay the amount and she could not produce the money trail to justify this huge transaction PW-26 Muhammad Ali Taj Deputy Commissioner FBI/IRS/RTC, Lahore produced OTC of the system generated tax record of Farhat Shahzadi (PO) for the year 2018 to 2023 Exh.PW-26/1 page 3034 Vol-X which bears ample witness in this regard.
52. The revenue record reveals that 458 kanals 4 marlas and 58 Sq.ft of land was initially transferred in the name of Al-Qadir University Trust through (marfat) Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari accused (since PO) on 19.04.2019 and 30.04.2019, was later transferred in the name of Al-Qadir university Project Trust through attorney Talib Hussain on 22.01.2021 vide Exh.PW-13/3 at pages 1398 and 1409 Vol-V. The Transfer Deed between Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari accused (since PO) and Talib Hussain dated 22.01.2021 clearly states that:- 'The land was purchased by Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. (Donor) as donation temporarily in the name of Transferor, who held the same as a custodian for the proposed truest because at that time the trust was under the process of creation and registration"
53. Besides the above mentioned land, accused Malik Riaz Hussain, CEO/Director, Bahria Town (PA)
Ltd. also transferred the total amount of Rs. 285000000/- into the accounts of Al Qadir University Project Trust which is abundently proved by tie statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO through Exh.PW-5/7 at page 1573 Vol-V.
54. Furthermore, the accused Malik Riaz Hussain also financed and constructed the building of AI- Qadir University Project Trust value of which was got assessed at the rate of Rs. 284,032.000/- by the management of Al-Qadir University Project Trust though a private evaluator. Further, Malik Riaz Hussain also provided various items such as furniture and fixtures worth Rs. 5,149,000, and computers etc worth Rs. 648,500/- to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust. PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO confirms the very fact in his deposition.
55. Accused Bushra Imran Khan acknowledged the receipt of above mentioned land, building etc through an 'Acknowledgement of Donation deed dated 24.03.2021 between the Bahria Town (Pvt.)
Limited and the Al-Qadir University Project Trust, available as Exh.PW-5/5 page 244 Vol-I got exhibited in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO.
56. It is pertinent to mention here that requests for the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) u/s 21 of the NAO, 1999 had been generated by the NAB Headquarters through Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) wherein, the UK authorities were requested to provide various record (which is still awaited) inter alia, the followings:- i. Certified copies of initial freezing order secured by the NCA for freezing the amount approximately 20 Million (GBP) along with application. ii. Subsequent application along with freezing orders secured by the NCA at the Westminster Magistrate's Court on 12 August, 2019, to further freeze the amount 119.7 million (GBP) lying in the various bank accounts belonging to the said individuals and family members and also 1 Hyde Park property which Mr. Ali Riaz had purchased from Mr. Hassan Nawaz in 2016. iii. Complete correspondence of the NCA with the Pakistani authorities regarding the said matter. iv. Settlement/Framework Agreement between Mr. Ahmed Ali Riaz Family and the NCA UK. v. Details of bank accounts from which the said amounts were transferred to a designated bank account in Pakistan maintained in the name of Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan.
57. On 14.03.2022, a new trust, namely "the AI-Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust" was registered with the sub-Registrar, Sohawa. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan was mentioned as the settlor/founder of the said trust and accused Bushra Khan, accused Farhat Shahzadi (since PO) and Arif Nazir Butt as trustees. Accusued Imran Ahmed khan contributed Rs. 15 million towards the corpus of the trust, which amount was given to him by Bahria Town, through the account of the AI- Qadir University Project Trust.
58. Accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO) and Barrister Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (since PO) held several meetings with the NCA. They were well aware of the fact that the NCA had obtained the AFOs under the Crime of Proceeds Act, 2002. Accordingly, the same attracted paragraph 4 of the Terms of the Reference of the ARU which provides as under:- "4. Where Assets Recovery Unit finds foreign assets/properties/bank accounts of Pakistani citizen/residents or legal person with suspicion of money laundering or the asset falling under suspicion as proceed of crime, the ARU may refer the matter and evidence attained to the relevant LEA i.e. the NAB or the FIA etc for necessary and expedient action as per law."
59. However, the matter was never referred to the NAB or the FIA in blatant violation of the above mentioned TORs. Instead, accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO) and co-accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (since PO), without any lawful mandate, kept on corresponding with the NCA in order to decide unauthorizedly the fate of funds which were meant for the State of Pakistan. It is astonishing to observe that they frequently visited the NCA UK at the State expense but unfortunately acted against the State interest in order to secure wrongful gain for Malik Riaz Hussain and family and causing wrongful loss to the State of Pakistan.
60. Furthermore, both the accused Persons defeated the purpose of creation of the ARU which was to assists the relevant (LEAs) i.e. NAB, FIA and FBR etc. A detecting, tracing, pursuing and repatriating the unlawful foreign assets/properties/bank accounts of Pakistani citizen/residents or legal persons with suspicion of money laundering or the asset, falling under the suspicion as proceeds of crime.
61. Mens rea of the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO) is evident from the amendments he made into the 'distribution of work" of co-accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (since PO). Accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since PO), successfully managed to omit all the conditions requiring prior approval of the Ministry of Law and Justice which clearly suggests that he wanted to conceal his wrong doings by disregarding the role of other members of the ARU as well as taking on board the Ministry of Law and Justice etc.
62. The Assets Recovery Unit was required to report on its performance to the Prime Minister of Pakistan through its Chairman on fortnightly basis or as desired by the Prime Minister. Therefore, under the given circumstances, it is evident that the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) was directly reporting to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and both were hand in gloves with each other in the instant matter.
63. Furthermore, several trips were carried out by the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) and his accomplice Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (PO) to the United Kingdom to meet with the NCA officials on pending cases/recoveries. However, both the accused persons with malafide and with Criminal intent, kept the other members of the ARU in darkness regarding the details of proceedings of the NCA against Malik Riaz Hussain. The accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar deliberately did not requisition the other designated members from the concerned departments as mandated in the TORs of formation of the ARU to fulfil his ulterior designs during the period 2018-2019.
64. It is also pertinent to point out here that all the record pertaining to the correspondence between the ARU and the NCA was in physical custody of accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) and Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (PO) and the same is missing from the office of the ARU. The very fact clearly suggests that the important record, which was the property of Government of Pakistan, has been siphoned off in order to wash away the wrong doings by the accused persons. Furthermore, it also tantamounts to hampering with the legal process. An Inquiry has been conducted by the Cabinet Division regarding missing record of the ARU wherein the responsibility of missing record has been fixed upon the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO), former SAPM, accused Zia UI Mustafa Nasim
(PO) and another.
65. It is evident from the contents of the letter written to the NCA by the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) that there was no ongoing criminal inquiry/investigation against Malik Riaz Hussain and Family in Pakistan in order to diffuse the investigation proceedings by the NCA, UK against Malik Riaz Hussain and family. It is pertinent to mention here that this letter corresponds with the time during which the land in the name of Al-Qadir Trust through the accused Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari
(PO) was being purchased and transferred from the local land owners by the Bahria Town (Pvt.)
Limited.
66. The connivance inter se the accused persons Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, Shahzad Akbar (PO) and Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) is also established from the record of visitors of the then Prime Minister House situated at Banigala which reflects that the accused persons Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) and Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) visited the house of accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi on 11.07.2019 materializing the under hand dealings of their mutual interests on the basis of quid pro quo. Copy of Entry Register of the visitors of the PM House Banigala as Exh.PW-11/2 is available at pages 922, 926, 927 of Vol-IV tendered by the prosecution in the deposition of PW-11 Mushtaq Ahmed ASI/Moharar PM House and further confirmed by Muhammad Ashraf S.I PS Barakahu as PW-18.
67. The mons rea and ill intent of the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) is also evident from the "Note for the Prime Minister with subject "Account Freezing Orders (AFOs) and Repatriation of Funds to Pakistan in Mr. Ahmed Ali Riaz Family and Messers Bahria Town (Private) Limited" Exh.PW-3/9 page 280 Vol-II which was initiated by him on 02.12.2019. The contents of said note were intentionally manipulated to imply that the amount of 139.7 million (GBP) present in all frozen accounts of the co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain will be repatriated to the State of Pakistan. The accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar shrewdly mentioned the destination of repatriated funds in paragraph 3 of the note which includes that all the frozen accounts to be surrendered and repatriated to the State of Pakistan against their liability in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Courts' orders dated 13.03.2019 and 21.03.2019. He even did not show any iota of hesitance or reluctance to malign the prestigious institution by misinterpreting its esteemed order for ulterior motives. The accused Shahzad Akbar (PO) was well aware that account of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan was not the account of the State of Pakistan and both were invariably distinguishable. Infact, in the order dated 21.03.2019 in the CMA No. 8758 of 2018 mentioned in the note for the Prime Minister, there was no liability or fine imposed on the Bahria Town Limited Karachi. Essentially, it was accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) who offered to purchase the land through various price quotes a finally a sum of Rs 460 billion against 16.896 acres of the land belonging to the Government of Sindh / the Malir Development Authority (MDA), was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan with the approval of GoS/MDA. In short, it was a commercial deal of Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan only ensured the protection of third party rights i.e allotees to whom Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) had already sold thousands of plots on the illegally acquired land. By using the word "liability', the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) tried to imply that Hon'ble Supreme Court had already imposed fine on Malik Riaz Hussain which will be adjusted from the repatriated funds. This manipulation was done just to enable the diversion of funds meant for the State of Pakistan for the benefit of Malik Riaz Hussain (PO).
68. The accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) himself stated in paragraph 10 of the said "Note for the Prime Minister Exh.PW-3/9 page 282 Vol-II that:- "Furthermore, as the funds are being repatriated to the Exchequer in Pakistan, FBR may take into account the same with reference to Section 111(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001......"
69. This fact invariably establishes that the funds were destined towards the State Exchequer but were diverted for the benefit of accused Malik Riaz Hussain, CEO/Director Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited, through manipulation by abusing and misusing the authority and due process of law.
70. Besides, the press release issued by the NCA regarding the subject matter vide copy of signed Deed of Confidentiality alongwith Schedule and press release Exh.PW-2/2 at pages No. 403 to 411 Vol-II tendered in the prosecution evidence in the testimony of the PW-4 Mohsin Amna Deputy Secretary ARU clearly provides as under:- "The assets will be returned to the State of Pakistan"
71. Even the ARU in their press release dated 3 December, 2019 also provides that:- "The NCA also agreed for immediate repatriation of funds to the State of Pakistan"
72. The underhand dealing of the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) is also established by the deposition of Muhammad Azam Khan, former Secretary to the Primerd Minister who deposed as PW-33 while corroborating and substantiating the prosecution version.
73. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) blatantly violated the rules 18(6) a. 20(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 which deal with inclusion of cases in the Cabinet Meeting. Furthermore, few participants of the Cabinet Meeting who appeared during evidence also confirmed that a sea envelope was presented in the meeting by the accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar
(PO) who insisted the Cabinet to approve the agenda as it was a 'secret matter. He informed the Cabinet that the money was to be transferred to the State of Pakistan from UK. He further informed that the confidentiality was compulsion from the NCA, UK. It is pertinent to mention here that accused did not bring any document on record to establish that submission of Deed of Confidentiality by the Government of Pakistan was required by the NCA. PW-32 Zubaida Jalal deposed that she insisted during the Cabinet meeting that the matter in hand involved the state money and well informed decision after proper deliberation was required to be made. However, the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the then PM, chairing the meeting insisted to grant approval without further discussion/deliberation. Therefore, the agenda was approved without going into further details.
74. PW-31 Pervaiz Khan Khattak the then Defence Minister also harped the same string during his deposition by stating that at the time of approval of the Prime Minister for placement of the Note with annexed Confidentiality Deed before the Cabinet, accused Shahzad Akbar (PO) had illegally, without any authority and with the consent and blessings of the co-accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, already signed and submitted the Deed of Confidentiality to the NCA on 06.11.2019 on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. Accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (PO), Expert ARU had also signed the Confidentiality Deed as a witness by blatantly misusing his authority and neglecting the State interest.
75. The discretion exercised by accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi by including the case directly into the Cabinet meeting after his personal meeting with Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) coupled with the fact that the Confidentiality Deed was already signed and submitted before the Cabinet meeting, establishes that both the accused persons were in haste to conceal their crimes and wrong doings by misusing their authority and bypassing the legal and procedural requirements.
76. It is astonishing to observe here that the designated account mentioned in the Deed of Confidentiality was the account of Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan meant for the payment of the liability of the Land of Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited Karachi (BTLK). Hence it is evident that it was accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO), who with the active knowledge and consent of co-accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, intentionally with malafide, gave the account of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan to the NCA instead of account of the State of Pakistan thus not only misleading the NCA but also causing colossal losses to the National Exchequer to the tune of 171.159 million
(GBP) so far. It is pertinent to mention here that the Finance Division Government of Pakistan has confirmed that the above mentioned account was not the account of State of Pakistan. It is pertinent to mention here that amount 171.159 million (GBP) was deposited by the NCA out of the total amount of 190 million (GBP) got frozen by the NCA in UK after certain deductions out of the total amount 190 million (GBP).
77. Subsequently, meeting of the Cabinet Committee was held on 09. June, 2022 which recommended that the Note sealed earlier in the Cabinet meeting dated 03.12.2019 might be de- sealed before resumption of work. Accordingly, the Cabinet in its meeting dated 14. June, 2022 ratified the decision of the Cabinet committee thereby de-sealing the envelope containing the Note. Copy of minutes of the Cabinet sub-Committee meeting dated 14.06.2022 Exh.PW-3/18 is available at pages No. 341 to 343 Vol-II, got exhibited in the statement of PW-3 Jamil Ahmed SO Cabinet Division.
78. The following recommendations were proposed by the Cabinet Committee for approval of the Cabinet:- i. "Since the amount involved in this case, prima facie, belongs to the State of Pakistan and not Bahria Town, it is, therefore, recommended that Ministry of Law and caw., Justice through Attorney General of Pakistan should immediately approach the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for transfer of the funds from Bahria Town, Karachi account to the Central Account No. of the Federal Government. ii. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has also started probe/investigation into the same matter. It is, therefore, recommended, that given the NAB, engagement in the matter being concerned agency, especially with respect to the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement with foreign countries, and to avoid duplication of efforts, the Cabinet Committee's work done on AFO's so far may be transferred to the NAB along with record of the proceedings, and the Cabinet Committee may be de-notified.
79. The land measuring 458 kanal 4 marlas 58 sqft purchased by the Bahria Tow (Pvt.) Limited was transferred in the name of Al Qadir Trust University through (marfat) Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (PO) in April, 2019. This corresponds to the time when the illegal benefit was being extended to accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) by accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his accomplices. The same land was later on transferred in the name of AI Qadir University Project Trust through attorney Talib Hussain on 22.01.2021.
80. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order passed in the CMA No. 8758/2018 in CMA No. 376-K/2014 etc. directed the funds received from the UK be remitted to the Government of Pakistan as earlier discussed. The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- "16. It is unfortunate that without seeking permission of the Supreme Court amounts were remitted into its account and the Supreme Court was unnecessarily involved with money detected by NCA, which probably were proceeds of criminal activity which was detected by NCA, seized and then frozen by AF0s. The other persons/entities to whom notices were sent (except Mashriq Bank PSC) did not come forward to explain why monies were sent from their accounts to the account of the Supreme Court. Apparently, these monies were used to offset Bahria Town, stated liability, bringing to mind the idiom -- robbing Peter to pay Paul. Therefore, the amount received from abroad and the markup earned thereon be remitted to the Government of Pakistan. The Registrar of the Supreme Court and the National Bank shall the needful in this regard."
81. The accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, being the Prime Minister, chaired the Cabinet Meeting held on 03.12.2019 in which the Deed of Confidentiality was presented by accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO), SAPM to the Prime Minister and subsequently got approved by the Cabinet for signing, Sufficient evidence is available on record to suggest that the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi by way of misuse of authority and in active connivance with Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) and other co- accused enabled the transfer of funds destined for the State of Pakistan in to the account for payment of the land by the Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited, Karachi in the name of Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan for the benefit of co accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) for adjusting his admitted financial liability.
82. The accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi was privy to the fact that the Confidentiality Deed presented in the Cabinet Meeting dated 03.12.2019 had already been signed and submitted to the NCA by the co-accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) on 06.11.2019. In order to conceal his wrong doings, the accused Imran Ahmed Khan intervened when the discussion on the additional agenda item No. 2 was started by some of the participants and insisted upon approval of the same without 4, discussion and deliberation. Mens rea of the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, co-accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) and other accused is evident from the fact that the bank account number of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan was provided to the NCA in Confidentiality Deed dated 06.11.2019 with malafide under the guise of account of the State of Pakistan thus making Malik Riaz Hussain/Bahria Town beneficiary of the account, which was destined to be repatriated to the State of Pakistan. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi in connivance with accused Shahzad Akbar (PO) not only misguided and cheated the Cabinet regarding non-disclosure of prior signing of the Confidentiality Deed but also, deliberately and with malalide, failed to mention that the amount had already been repatriated and had been diverted for the payment of the price of land by Malik Riaz Hussain/Bahria Town, Karachi in the account of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which effectively yielded personal benefit to Malik Riaz Hussain/Bahria Tow rather than to the State of Pakistan hence causing huge loss to the State Exchequer.
83. In return to the illegal favor extended to Malik Riaz Hussain/Bahria Town, accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi illegally obtained material benefits from him under the garb of donations i.e. land measuring 458 Kanals approx along with funds to the tune of Rs. 285 million etc for the Al-Oadir University Project Trust, in which accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his wife co accused Bushra Imran Khan are the trustees.
84. Furthermore, it has also been established that land measuring 240 kanals 6 marlas situated at Mouza Mohra Noor, Islamabad was transferred by the accused Ahmed Ali Riaz (PO) in the name of accused Farhat Shahzadi, a front person of accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran Khan without any consideration against the favor extended to Malik Riaz Hussain and family.
85. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan during the final arguments pleaded that he approved the Cabinet decision because it was apprised to the Cabinet that they had only two choices i.e. i. If the confidential agreement between the NCA and accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) is honored by the Government of Pakistan then 190 million will be remitted to Pakistan and ii. If not, then Government will have to go into litigation in the UK which would take over 5 years.
Foreign litigation had already cost Government of Pakistan over 100 million dollars.
86. The accused further argued that he had no knowledge that amount had been remitted prior to the Cabinet Meeting. The accused also disassociated himself from 240 kanals and 06 marlas of land in Mouza Mohra Noor by contending that he was unaware of any such transaction between the accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) and Malik Riaz Hussain (PO).
87. The plea of accused is not plausible as the funds were not received by the State of Pakistan rather were diverted for the benefit of co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain/Bahria Town. Furthermore, sufficient evidence is available on record to prove that accused was overseeing the business of the ARU and co-accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO) was hand in gloves with him in this transaction.
The ARU was held answerable to the PM and not to the Cabinet.
88. The accused Bushra Imran Khan remained Trustee of the Al-Oadir University Project Trust since its creation till date along with her husband accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. Sufficient evidence is available on record to establish that the donation given to the trust by the co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) and Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited is intact illegal personal gain gratification extended to the co-accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi in return to his favors to Malik Riaz Hussain.
89. Accused Bushra Imran Khan, being spouse of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi signed acknowledgment of donations deeds with the Bahira Town Pvt Ltd. She aided/assisted and abetted in the commission of offence by signing the "Acknowledgement of Donation" deed dated 24 March, 2021.
She is also the co-signatory to the account of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust maintained at the HBL Civic Centre branch, Islamabad.
90. The accused Farhat Shahzadi, being an old associate of the accused Bushra Khan, acted as a front person of accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and accused Bushra Imran Khan. She, being a confederate of Bushra Khan, was made trustee of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust on 22-Jan, 2022. Moreover, she also became trustee of the Al-Oadir University Endowment Fund Trust which was registered in the sub-Registrar office Sohawa on 14.03.2022 in which accused Bushra Imran Khan was also trustee and accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi was author/settlor establishes that she was an aide of the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and accused Bushra Imran Khan. The very fact manifestly belied the strongly pleaded assertion of both the said accused that they had no concern with the deals of Farhat Shahzadi (PO).
91. It is floating on the surface that shortly before becoming the trustee of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust, a total of 240 Kanals 6 Marla land was transferred in the name of Farhat Shahzadi
(PO) through 3 x mutations by the Bahria Town Pvt. Limited through accused Ahmed Ali Riaz as gratification. No monetary or other consideration was ever paid to the Bahria Town Pvt. Limited against the said huge chunk of land establishing substantially that this valuable land was also part and parcel of the illegal gratification given to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his spouse by Malik Riaz Hussain for illegal favor extended to him.
92. In reply to the question put u/s 342 Cr.P.C to the accused Imran Ahmed Khan regarding violation of the Rules of Business, 1973 he responded that it was the discretion of the PM to relax these rules and he thought it suffice to reply that 'it was a routine matter'. The Rules of Business, 1973 are statutory rules which seek their origin directly from the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The (Federal) Rules of Business, 1973 are placed at very high pedestal in the Federal Government business keeping in view their sanctity. The said note for the Prime Minister was put to the Cabinet and was got approved just after one day without discussion and deliberation against the provision of the Rules of Business, 1973 which require its placement before the Cabinet not less than seven days. Na doubt the PM has the discretion to relax the rules but discretion is not unfettered as it must be exercised judiciously and the same should not be swayed away by the whims and caprices of any individual for his own personal benefit. The deposition of Pervaiz Khan Khattak PW-31 also substantiates the very fact which clearly reflects that Imran Ahmed Khan accused the then PM being the Minister incharge of the Cabinet exercised his undue influence upon the Cabinet members to get this illegal approval from the Cabinet through the Chairman ARU Mirza Shahzad Akbar (PO).
93. Learned counsel for the accused has come out with the defence that since the prosecution could not produce the correspondence / proceedings of the NCA regarding Account Freezing Orders (AFOs) by the Court of Westminster and settlement agreement between M/s Bahria Town and the NCA etc hence this missing link is fatal for the prosecution case which seems to be crucial defence against the prosecution but the same is not fatal for the prosecution case as the very facts have been admitted by Mirza Shahzad Akbar in his Note dated 02.12.2019 for the PM (Exh.PW- 3/9 page 280 to 289 Vol-II) which document is not disputed between the parties rather the same is admitted and the facts admitted need not be proved. Similarly, an inquiry was conducted regarding fixation of responsibility for missing of official record of the ARU in which Shahzad Akbar (PO), Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (PO) and another were held responsible.
94. Moreover. as per the Rules 12, 13 and 14 of the Rules of Business, 1973, the consultation with the Finance Division, Foreign Affairs Division, and Law & Justice Division was required respectively, keeping in view the mandate of these provisions but unfortunately no requisite consultation was sought for from these Divisions in utter disregard and gross violation of the Rules of Business, 1973.
The violation has been committed maliciously without justifying any urgency in this matter and without explaining as to what prompted the PM to relax these rules without any plausible reason and justification.
95. The defence has attempted to take refuge under the Explanation-I of clause (vi) of section 9(a) of the NAO, 1999 by pleading that the PM and the Cabinet performed this business in good faith which does not constitute commission of any offences but unfortunately, the above mentioned facts and circumstances clearly suggest that all the business done was tainted with malafide for personal gain and in order to deprive the State of Pakistan of its huge amount. Regarding the principle of good faith I can be enlightened by the esteemed case law i.e. 2006 SCMR 1334 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] (Fazal ullah Siddiqui vs. The State).
'12.-- As far as the third contention is concerned, the fact that the award was not challenged could hardly be a ground to claim immunity from being prosecuted as the circumstances of the case found by the learned Iwo Courts and noted by us, leave no manner of doubt, that the appellant did not act in good faith. We will like to observe that nothing done without due care end caution can be accepted as having been done in good faith. This principle has statutory backing, by virtue of section 52 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Although, since the trial of the appellant was held under Ordinance No. XVIII of 1999, the definition aforesaid may not be stricto senso applicable to a trial under the said statute yet the principle is well-recognized in the administration of criminal justice-- -"
96. Another plea taken by the defence is that since amount has been repatriated to the State of Pakistan, no offence is made out. The moment of 171.59 million (GBP) was deposited in the account of Supreme Court of Pakistan In connivance with the Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited and the offence was completed the moment this amount was so transferred and the very fact does not even slightly minimize the intensity of the offence. Rather the very fact is corroborative piece of evidence against the defence plea. It does not suit to mouth of the defence to take such pleas as if the looted amount is recovered, the very fact does not attract the criminality rather it is used as corroborative piece of incriminating evidence against the accused.
97. It is to be pointed out here that it was purely a public money and no confidentiality was involved in it The defence could not tender a plausible justification by keeping this matter confidential and its approval without discussion and deliberation. The concealment of the facts was made maliciously to keep the public at large in darkness about the huge public money to be used for personal benefit.
98. Astonishingly, neither the transactions were got approved by the Cabinet on 03.12.2019 nor their retrospective sanction/approval rectification was sought for rather the Cabinet was kept completely in the darkness by making this monetary transaction as a State secrets for the reasons better known to the accused.
99. Money ought to have been transferred in the Government of Pakistan account rather than for settlement of liability of the Bahria Town Pvt. Limited there are various provision under the United Nations Charter for Prevention of Corruption which provide that the proceeds of the crimes are to be remitted to the States. In the world of transparency, it is uprising that money received from abroad which was either laundered or illegally transferred was kept hidden from the public of Pakistan. By all means the amount got transfer. in the account of Supreme Court of Pakistan was the amount of State of Pakistan as determined/observed by various forums right from the NCA and Westminster Court to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. So much so, the accused. Shahzad Akbar (PO) SAPM the Chairman ARU in a series of his correspondence with various forums candidly admitted the very fad by ruling out the assertion, If any that this amount did not belong to the State of Pakistan.
100. The defence has also assorted that this is a past and closed case which was reopened with malefic, against the accused persons. There in nothing on record to show that it was a past and closed transaction. Defence failed to get anything favorable through cross. examination even after consultation of record requisitioned on its own request, whereas the matter of Complaint Verification (CV) closure at one stage was explained adequately by PW-35 during cross examination. Suffice it to say hero that the acting Chairman NAB delegated the power to authorize an inquiry in the matter to the DG NAB (Rawalpindi) vide letter dated 15.07.2022 Exh.PW-35/1 (original letter available at page 1 of the Vol-I) tendered in the deposition of PW-35/I.O Mian Umar Nadeem. Accordingly, the DG NAB Rawalpindi authorized the inquiry in the name of Mr. Yasir Rehman Deputy Director/I.O NAB Rawalpindi vide authorization letter dated 15.07.2022 Exh.PW-35/2 is available at page 2 of Vol-I tendered in the statement of the same PW Mien Umar Nadeem I.O.
After the transfer of Mr. Yasir Rehman/Deputy Director NAB, the case was authorized to Mian Umar Nadeem Deputy Director/I.O vide letter dated 07.12.2022 PW-35/3 available at page 3 of Vol-I produced in the deposition of Mien Umar Nadeem PW-35/I.O vide letter dated 20.04.2023, the inquiry was upgraded into investigation by the Chairman NAB by delegation of powers through letter dated 20.04.2023 in the name of DG NAB Rawalpindi Exh.PW-35/4 at page 4 of the Vol-I.
Similarly, vide letter dated 28.04.2023 Mian Umar Nadeem PW-35/I.O was authorized to investigate into the matter vide letter dated 28.04.2023 Exh PW-35/5 available at page 5 of Vol.I Strict observance of all these procedural formalities clearly suggest that the NAB authorities proceeded into the matter from very inception quite in accordance with law, therefore, the element of any malafide on the part of NAB/prosecution is hereby ruled out, accordingly. Although the defence had raised various objections regarding admissibility of documents at the time of exhibition but no arguments have been addressed during the final hearing. In any case most of the documents are public documents brought on record through proper custody and even otherwise crucial facts of the case are admitted. Hence, after examination of the relevant documents by the Court on its own, the objections are held to be backless or misconceived.
101. By virtue of a trust deed dated 26.12.2019, a trust namely the Al-Qadir University Project was registered by Mr. Babar Awan, and Imran Ahmed Khan accused was appointed the Chairman of the trust and a trustee along with three other trustees namely Babar Awan, Bushra Khan, and Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari. Copy of the original trust deed Exh.PW-14/3 is available at pages 1017 to 1028 Vol-IV produced in the statement of PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar office of the Joint sub- Registrar Islamabad.
102. A letter was written to the Joint sub-Registrar Islamabad by Imran Ahmed Khan accused on 22.04.2020 informing him that Babar Awan and Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari had been removed as trustees of the trust, in violation of section 46 of the Trusts Act, 1882 and Article 13 of the Original Trust Deed. Copy of letter dated 22.04.2020 Exh.PW-14/4 is available at page 1029 Vol-IV tendered in the evidence of the same PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar.
103. The original trust deed was amended on 25.04.2020. Copy of amended trust deed of the Al- Qadir University Project Trust Exh.PW-14/5 is available at page 1030 VA-IV tendered during the statement of the same PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar.
104. The amended Trust Deed which is the second Trust Deed was filed to amend the 'the instrument/deed of the Al- Qadir University Project Trust made on 26.12.2019. The name of trust was changed to 'the AI-Qadir University Project Trust' from 'the AI-Qadir University Project', and the accused Imran Ahmed Khan became the settlor/founder of the trust. Substantial changes were also made to the aims and objectives, etc of the trust. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan also became the lifetime Chairman of the trust. Changes were made to the liquidation/dissolution provision.
Certified copies of second amendment in the Trust Deed Exh.PW-14/6 is available at page 1032 Vol- IV got exhibited in the statement of PW-14 Zulfiqar Khan Registry Moharar.
105. Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (PO) transferred 458 kanals 4 merles and 58 sqft land to the AI-Qadir University Project Trust through attorney Talib Hussain on 22.01.2021. Copy of mutation along with challan Exh.PW-13/3 available at pages 1398 to 1409 Vol-V were got exhibited in the statement of PW-13 Rizwan Azam ADLR Jhelum.
106. The total sum of Rs. 285,000,000, was transferred into the account of AI-Qadir University Project Trust from the account of Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd. Copy of details of donations the AI-Qadir University Project Trust Exh.PW-5/5 are at page 244 Vol-I got exhibited in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid Chief Financial Officer (CFO) AI-Qadir University Project Trust.
107. An "Acknowledgment of Donation.' deed was entered between the accused Bushra Imran Khan and the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd on 24.03.2020. It acknowledges that the accused Malik Riaz Hussain
(PO) also financed and got constructed the building of the Al-Qadir University Project Trust, the value of which is Rs. 284,032,000/- as got assessed by the management of the AI-Qadir University Project Trust through a private evaluator. Further, Malik Riaz Hussain (PO) also provided various items such as furniture and fixtures etc worth Rs. 5149000/- and computers worth Rs. 648500, to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust. Acknowledgment of donation deed in original Exh.PW-5/5 is available at page 244 Vol-I got exhibit in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO.
108. A total of 240 kanals of land worth Rs. 530 million situated in Mouza Mohra Noor, Islamabad was transferred in the name of accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) from the Bahria Town Pvt Ltd through accused Ahmed Ali Riaz CEO Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd through oral mutations from 29.07.2021 to 28.01.2021. Copies of reports regarding mutations, mutations and resolutions of the Bahria Town regarding transfer of land Exh.PW-10/2 and Exh.PW-10/3 are available at pages 852 to 921 got exhibited in the statement of PW-10 Abbas Goraya Patwari Circle Mohra Noor, Islamabad.
109. Two trustees namely Arif Nazir Butt and Farhat Shahzadi (PO) were added to the Al-Qadir University Project Trust on 18.12.2021. Copy of AI-Qadir University Endowment Fund Trust Exh.PW-5/4 is available at page 1525 Vol-V got exhibited in the statement of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO.
110. A new trust namely the Al-Qadir University Project Endowment Fund Trust was registered with the sub-Registrar sohawa on 14.03.2022. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan was settlor / founder of the said trust and accused Bushra Imran, accused Farhat Shahzadi (PO) and Arif Nazir butt as trustees.
Although the deed stated that accused Imran Ahmed Khan contributed Rs. 15 million towards the corpus of the trust, the amount was actually transferred from the account of Al-Qadir University Project Trust. Copy of this document Exh.PW-5/1 is available at pages 1488 to 1507 of Vol-V got exhibited in the deposition of PW-5 Muhammad CFO.
111. It is evident that new trust was self-centered to which the accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran are the only beneficiaries/ trustees. The original trust was changed in utter disregard of the provisions of the Trust Laws. The amendment in the trust cannot change the settle because it was a charitable trust. The official address of the trust was also changed from sector F-8 Islamabad to Banigala Islamabad. There are 25 provisions in the previous trust whereas there are only 10 provisions in the subsequent trust. It is also imperative to note here that the moment Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran accused became the only trustees, the flood gate for transfer of land and other donations etc was opened in favor of this newly constituted trust. The land which was transferred in the name of Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (PO) in the year 2019 was transferred to the Al-Oadir University Project Trust on 22.01.2021. It is yet to be answered as in what capacity Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (PO) kept the huge chunk of land in his name which later on was transfer to the said project. The land transferred in the name of trust by the public office holder was a quid pro qua transfer in the name of trust as gratification to the public office holder Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi accused and his wife Bushra Imran accused. For all intent and purposes, the land transferred by Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari in the name of Al-Oadir University Project Trust and and measuring 240 kanals 6 marla transferred by Ahmed Ali Raiz of Bahira Town in the name of Mst. Farhat Shahzadi without consideration is the Government property within meaning of Section 5(t) of the NAO, 1999 under the given circumstances as the same was transferred as gratification for taking undue benefit of 190 million (GBP). The trust cannot be established on the State land/donated and by the public office holder. The accused Bushra Imran is also held liable being a trustees as provided u/s 5(d)(iii) of the NAO, 1999 which inter alia reads as under:- (iii) a trustee of any trust declared by the accused, or of which the accused is also a trustee or a beneficiary,"
112. Similarly, section 5(t) of the NAO, 1999 is all inclusive which reads as under:- "Government Property' means property belonging to the Government and includes gifts, donations, financial assistance, grants, aid received or collected in whatever name or for whatever purpose by a holder of public office during the tenure of office;"
113. The conflict of interest in this case can be well understood from section 9(a)(ii) of the NAO, 1999 which is as under:- '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).......................
(ii) If he accepts or obtains or offers any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which ho knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or likely to be, concerned in any proceeding 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"
114. Regarding conflict of interest I can seek guidance from the esteemed case law cited as: 2018 SCMR 2128 (khawaja Muhammad Asif vs. Muhammad Usman Dar and others).
"16. Black's Law Dictionary defines conflict of interest as, real or seeming incompatibility between ones private interest and one, public or fiduciary duties'. To serve personal interest means to give 'preferential treatment' by using one, official privileges or misusing confidential information to benefit someone else or one, own interests. There are numerous examples that come to mind which can reflect the essence. of a conflict of interest situations such as the prospect of personally gaining financial benefits subject to an approval of a project, introducing policy that are friendly to one's private interests or lobbying to approve a friends tender or application just to help his interests---."
115. Similarly, sub section (iv) of clause (a) of the same section, is reproduced as under:-
(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 things or pecuniary advantage."
116. The most orchestrated argument by the learned defence counsel is that the accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran Khan did not derive any personal gain of even a single penny from the AI-Qadir University Project Trust. They tried to seek the advantage form the deposition of PW-5 Muhammad Zahid CFO Al-Qadir University Project Trust who during the cross examination stated that the accused did not receive any personal benefit out of this transaction. His deposition to that extent can hardly be relied upon because it has otherwise been proved that the extraordinary donations made by the Bahria Town Pvt Ltd in favour of the Al-Qadir university Project Trust were in exchange of favours extended to the Bahria Town in shape of transfer of 171.591 million (GBP) in the designated account of the Supreme Court of Pakistan meant for the settlement of Bahria Town's liability whereas these funds meant for the account of the State of Pakistan. It is also an established law that a public office holder cannot formulate trust on the basis of donations and gratifications etc Such properly has been held to be the "Government property" for all intent and purposes, under the NAB laws.
117. Even the 'noble' and 'the favored cause' is no exception in such like transactions which of course tantamount to white collar crimes which are rampant in our society in these days and while dealing with such offences a pragmatic dynamic and wholistic approach is required.
118. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi accused while getting his statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C in reply to question No. 76 stated as under: ''One such initiative was the Al-Qadir University Project Trust solely created as a noble cause for the under privileged students in the remote areas of the country who could receive absolutely free quality education."
119. Such trust based on even a noble cause cannot be established on the basis of gratification. The term 'gratification' is not to be calculated in terms of money or properly only. I can be enlightened from the catena of esteemed case law, the relevant portions of which are hereby reproduced, 1989 PSC 995 (R.S Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay and another)
4. We will first deal with the 35th, 36th and 37th of' the draft charges which were submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant before the High Court and on the, basis of which the High Court was invited by him to frame charges against the first respondent. These charges related to a transaction which according to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was paid by one Ramesh Merchant and his partners by way of contribution to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan on 16 April 1981 as a motive for the granting of no objection certificate by the first respondent for letting out of certain premises by M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers of which Ramesh Merchant and some others were partners to Indo-Suez Bank. The facts giving rise to these charges in so far as relevant may be briefly stated as follows.
6. ---M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers would pay Rs. 8 lakhs by way of donation to a Government Trust namely Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. Lal Chand Rohra and other 125 parties agreed to donate the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs Indira Gandhi Pratibha 05-05-2024 (Page 5 of 41) www.manupatra.com Columbia University Pratishthan and a cheque for Rs. 8 lakhs was accordingly issued by the partners of the firm of M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers---.
9. ---Those ore tell-tale circumstances which prima facie go to show that the grant of no objection certificate a. Me donation of Rs. 8 lakhs were closely related transactions and that one was in fact the consideration for the other--.
10. ---We are, therefore, of the view that a prima facie case was made out on behalf of the prosecution against the first, respondent in respect of the transaction of no objection certificate and 35th, 36th and 37th charges should have been framed against the first respondent---.
39. ---The five trusts appearing against items 3-7 above were thus intended to place ample funds at the disposal of the respondent and provide means and resources for his political aggrandisement Nirmal Sethia pratishthan was created in the name of a friend of the respondent all these six Trusts the respondent, h. wife, close relations and friends were associated as Trustees- --
50. ---While the prosecution has alleged that the payment of money were a consideration for the favour shown to NCPA, the defence has come out with the version that the payments made and stipulated were unconnected and the large sum of money agreed to be paid was for the purpose of improving the lot of the people of Konkan region. Similarly, in regard to the grant of 'no objection certificate' In respect of the premises of Nanubhai Jewellers, Mere , evidence from the side of the prosecution to support its allegation that the power of the State was exercised for a consideration while there is no denial regarding receipt of the payment---
57. ---- Indisputably the field under Section 165 is wider. If public servants are allowed accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes, they would easily circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present The difference between the acceptance of a bribe made punishable under Section 161 and 165, IPC, is that: under the former section the present is taken as a motive or reward for abuse of office: under the latter section the question of motive or reward is wholly immaterial and the acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted, is forbidden because though not taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour, it is likely to influence the public servant to show official favour to the person giving such valuable thing. The provisions of Sections 161 and 165, IPC as also Section 5 of the Act are intended to keep the public servant free from corruption and thus ultimately ensureth purity in public life. The evidence in this case, therefore, should have been judged keeping these aspects in view."
AIR 1960 Supreme Court 548 (C.I Emden versus State of Uttar Pradesh)
"9. ----Paragraph 3 of S. 161 of the Code provides that the word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or to gratification estimable in money. Therefore 'gratification" mentioned in S.4(1) cannot be confined only to payment of money---"
MANU/MG/0081/2014 (L.R. Mithran vs. Central Bureau of Investigation)
"10. ---This Court has considered the above fact that the adjudication order relating to reduction of duty, passed by the accused / appellant as Commissioner Central Excise was correct and it was upheld not only by the Appellate Authority but also by the apex Court. However, the question before this Court is not the correctness of the order but whether in lieu of passing such order the accused/appellant has received any valuable Consideration in the name of the Trust created by her in the name of her mother. It is further argued that the appellant has not received anything for herself It is also contended that the donation of 5,00,000/- was given to Zami Memorial Charitable Trust after the adjudication order was passed by the accused/appellant as Commissioner Central Excise, as such there was no favour shown to assessee as the order had already been passed.
15. ---In the opinion of this Court, the mem fact that the Appellate Authority has upheld the correctness of the order cannot justify the acceptance of valuable thing or money during the proceeding of adjudication or subsequent thereto, particularly when such consideration is accepted not long after the adjudication---.
17. ---this Court is of the view that in the present case from the evidence on record, merely for the reason that the case has been decided on 05.12-1996 by the accused, and the donation was accepted then3after in the name of Charitable Trust, (in the same month) it cannot be said that there is no conduct of commission or omission on the part of the accused."
PLD 2003 Lahore 669 (Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari Vs. NAB)
"31. Corruption, anyway, was always thought of to be a serious offence. We remember the book Tractatio de Barattaria (Jena, 1684) pp 3-4, where J.P. Lynckerious said, anyone who receives gifts, jeopardizes the health of the Republic, conspires against its liberty and integrity, neglects justice, perverts judgment, corrupts the just cause of honest men, the innocent and defenceless, and he went on to talk about rese-majesty and murder, the only crimes he felt fit to follow the abomination he had just denounced.
34. In a While Collar Crime, there is planning for a considerable time where people are cultivated and are bribed indirectly and often obliquely so that they would be of use et a time when they are needed.
43.--Any officer or public minister who by reason of his of or ministry accepts money or the promise of money, or any advantage other than his due fixed salary, in exchange for carrying out or neglecting to cony out one of his duties, even if the donation or offer is spontaneous, or does not infringe on the law, or... even if it is given in the a. of quickening the proceedings..., he is, in all cases, guilty of prevarication (in Italian Beratteria) which derives its name from barter (in Italian Beratto), by using Holy justice iniquitously for money or other gain.." AIR 1993 PUNJAB 516 (Mool Chand v. Rulia Ram Panna Lal and another)
1. To show gratitude to (a person) or for (service or the like); to requite.
2. To give or be a source of pleasure or satisfaction to; any beauty gratifies the eyes; hence to oblige; favour; as to gratify a fie; to indulge as to gratify humor a whim,
3. To receive or greet with pleasure; to welcome. To grace, adorh.
"1. A gratifying or state of gratified.
2. A reward; a recompense; a gratuity 3. A source of gratification; something that pleases 4. Expression of gratification, as in congratulation.
The meanings of the word 'recompense' in this dictionary are.....
1. To give compensation to; to requite, remunerate; compensate;
2. To given an equivalent for; to make up as by atoning or requiting; to pay for 3. To return In kind; to reciprocate as by rewarding or avenging: to pay back.
In the shorter in the Oxford Dictionary the meaning of word 'gratify' is--
1. to show gratitude to; to reward, requite,
2. To make a present (usually of money) or give a gratuity to, esp. as a recompense, or as a bribe.
3. To express pleasure at 4. To give pleasure to; to please, oblige; to do a favour to.
5. To please by compliance; to humour, indulge; to comply with; to conclude (an objection).
6. To render acceptable.
And the meaning of the word 'gratification' is----
1. The act of gratifying,
2. The state or fact of being gratified or pleased; enjoyment satisfaction.
3. A reward, recompense, gratuity, a bribe.
In the same dictionary this is the meaning of the word 'recompense.--
1. To reward, requite, repay (a person) for something done or given. To recompensate (a person) for some loss or injury sustained.
2. To make up for (some loss, injury defect, etc.); to take the place of to make compensation or atonement for (a misdeed wrong, etc). To make a return or requital for (something done or given).
3. To mete out in requital,
4. To make repayment, return, or amends.
The scope of the meaning of the word 'gratification' is thus very wide and will cover any return which pleases for, some favour done--. The first part of explanation to Section 123(1) (B) is verbatim taken from the second explanation to Section 161 of the Penal Code, which says --- "'Gratification'. The word gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications, or to gratifications estimable in money"
PLD 2019 Islamabad 566 (Dan Gunnar Bjarne Anderson Vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others)
"--The paramount object and purpose for enacting the Ordinance of 1999 was to detect, investigate a prosecute persons involved in corruption and corrupt practices. By no stretch of the imagination can a provision of the Ordinance of 1999 be construed as facilitating or encouraging persons in getting away with the consequences of being involved in the offence of corruption a. corrupt practices-..
I.L.R. (1897) Bom. 517 (Imperatrix v. Appaji bin Yadavrao) -The plain words exclude the defence that the benefit bargained tor was to go to somebody else, and also exclude the notion that an officer is protected if he agrees to let his official acts be swa yed by the motive of accepting gratification to be used professedly for advancing some public, not private, object such as charity, science or religion.........."
AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 416 (Full Bench) (Tirlochan Singh vs Karnali Singh and another)
'11. ---Secondly, that in any case, what the definition provides is that gift of gratification is be to a person and that an elector may be gratified not necessarily by payment of money to him directly but he may be gratified in a number of other ways, one of which may be some charitable or philanthropic work, which is for the benefit of the entire community of which he forms a part.
14. The leaned counsel for the petitioner referred to Gour's Commentary on Penal Law of India, 8th Edition, paragraph 11 at p. 1124, who, while dealing with the question as to 'What is gratification. observes as follow:- The word 'gratification" is not defined in the section or the Code but its sense is extended by the explanation which says that the word 'Is not restricted pecuniary gratification, or to gratification estimable in money, The word gratification is thus used in its larger sense as connoting anything which affords gratification or satisfaction or pleasure to the taste, appetite or the mind. Money is, of course, one source of affording pleasure, inasmuch as of it implies command over things which afford pleasure but there are various other objects which afford gratification. The satisfaction of one, desires, whether of body or of mind, is a gratification in the true sense of the term. The craving for an honorary distinction, or for sexual intercourse is an example of mental and bodily desires, the satisfaction of which is gratification not estimable money. A person may desire to marry his son to another's daughter, who may consent to the match on condition of his doing him some official favour. It is bribery. A person may be taken into a caste on his promising to do an official act as a motive or reward for his re-admission. It is bribe, short, gratification is any benefit or reward given to influence one in one, behaviour in office, and incline one to act contrary the rules of honesty and integrity. Anything whether a sum of money, an object which appeals to one, sense, a dinner, a plateful of fruit, a medicinal pill, is gratification within the meaning of the term, though the recipient may not be punishable on that account The expression 'gratification" is used in this section in the sense of anything which gives satisfaction to the recipient."
15. The word "gratification" is thus used in its larger sense, as "an act, which affords gratification or satisfaction or pleasure to the taste, appetite or the mind, He therefore, contended that an elector may be gratified in a number of ways. It may be by the payment of money. If the money is paid directly to him, that would be a simple case and it would be bribe; or he may not like to accept any money for himself but may like the same to be paid to a poor relation of his. This would be an indirect payment to him and in no way different from the first case. In another case, there may be no payment of money to the elector, directly or indirectly. and he may feel gratified by the candidate getting a well sunk in Ins village, where there is no satisfactory arrangement for drinking water Here, no doubt, the benefit is not directly to him and his object in getting the well sunk is very laudable and not reprehensible as it may be in the case of his receiving money himself directly or through his relation, but all the same, it cannot be said that he is not gratified--."
PLD 1993 Karachi 805 (Hafiz. Mustafa Khan and 9 others vs. Haji BUNDOO Khan and 2 others).
"---The appellate Court had correctly held that the property (plot) occupied by the mosque was a Government property and could not be made subject of the trust---."
PLD 2022 Lahore 684 (Muhammad Wajid and others Vs. The State and others).
"19. ---It may also be mentioned that economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The bail in such like cases even can be denied in those cases, which not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C as observed by the apex Court in case titled Imtiaz Ahmad v. The State" (PLD 1997 SC 545). As mentioned above, moral element in such like crime is absent and it must not be forgotten that white collar crimes are of such nature which effect the whole society, even though they may not have any immediate victims. In Dr Mubashar Hassan s case reported as PLD 2010 SC 265, the apex Court observed that in such like cases pragmatic approach should be adopted by the Courts at the investigation as well as bail stage and that no leniency should be shown to the people involved in such like cases because then it would be Impossible to successfully investigation and help bring the culprit to book or check the ever increasing cancer of corruption."
2021 MLD 1546 (Muhammad Ansari Vs. The State)
8. The menace of corruption has deeply penetrated almost in all sphere of our life. without distinction, the institutions and individuals are being financially defrauded and the criminals are making fortunes out of the plundered money. The fraudsters are playing havoc not only with the financial resources of general public but have also chewed the economy, headlong with utmost rapacity To counter such corrupt elements, the Courts are required to have resort more dynamic approach while dealing with such cases even at bail stage. Instead of leaning in favour of such accused by resorting to leniency, the Courts have to help the cause of victims, if sufficient incriminating material is available on record. In somewhat similar circumstances, bail was refused to an accused in case reported as Sajjad Hussain v. The State. (PLD 1997 Karachi 165) with following observation:- 'The landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Al- Jehad Trust through Raeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahabul Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC '' 324 (Popularity known as the Judges case) has raised hopes that the Courts will now play a significant role in eradicating corruption and other social evils. Therefore, it Is humbly submitted that in such a situation a more pragmatic approach than has been the case so far on the parts of the Courts is needed at the investigation as well as bail stages of corruption cases, because if the Courts show almost motherly leniency towards people accused of high corruption then it would be impossible to successfully investigate and help bringing the culprits to book or to check the ever increasing cancer of corruption."
The severity of white collar crimes can further be measured from the facts that such offences leave the victim in financial crises and mental distress. Due to foregoing reasons such offences are not to be placed at lower pedestals. It will not be an over-exaggeration to say that fraud is an offence only some paces behind robbery. In cases of robbery victims are deprived of their property through force and in cases of fraud similar goals are achieved but through deception."
2016 PCr.LJ 1737 [Sindh] (The Deputy Director, Intelligence vs. Sajid Hussain)
"7. From perusal of the record, including order of Special Court, it appears that the teamed Special Court at no material times tried to keep the distinction between an offence, affecting an individual and the one (offence) directed against the society as a who.. The white collar crimes do fall within second category where discretion of bail normally be not exercised in favour of the accused and mere non-falling of offence within prohibitor clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C normally becomes immaterial in such like cases. A reference in this regard can well be made to the case of Imtiaz Ahmed v. State (PLD 1997 SC 545) wherein it is observed that;
7. I may observe that a distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like a theft and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole for the purpose of bail Similarly, a distinction is to be kept mind between an offence committed by a public functionary respect of or in connection with his public office for the aforesaid purpose of bail In the former cases, the practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C in the absence of an exceptional circumstances may not be followed, but in the latter category, the Courts should be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. In my view the above category of the offenders belongs to a distinct class and they qualify to be treated falling within an exceptional Circumstance of the nature warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence is less than 10 years R.I for the offence involved provided the Court is satisfied that prima facie, there is material on record to connect the accused concerned with the commission of the offence involved..
2011 MLD 1202 [Karachi] (Murad Usmani and another vs. The State)
"8. It is case where it is alleged that serious fraud has been committed in granting of auto loans to a number of fake persons. Such kind of crimes are called 'White collar crimes." They are totally different in nature from common crimes that take place in the society. In common crimes for example a couple of persons come, duly armed, give a proverbial hakkal or lalkara, firing takes place and few persons are murdered. Things remain obvious from the word go and processes followed for covering the tacks are know, and well-settled. In case of white -collar crimes the primary instalment for commission for crime is creation of false documents. Documentary trial is created and if ever discovered for a long period crime remains hidden and many times culprits operate a manner that famous Ult. poet Mustafa Zaidi called we wearing gloves on their hands no fingerprints are left and it is difficult to trace them."
PLD 2006 Karachi 397 (Zaheer Hussain vs. The State)
"The ratio of the case of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Imtiaz Ahmed v.
The State PLD 1997 SC 545 Is fully applicable to the case of present applicant Amjad Hussain, wherein it has been held that the criteria for grant of bail in white collar crime is entirely different then the grant of bail in any other criminal case."
2005 PCr. LJ 1566 (Muhammad Munaf vs. The State)
I am of the view that the offence alleged in the present bail applications pertains to import of smuggled goods on the strength of fake/bogus documents coupled with evasion of Slate Revenue.
The offence, therefore, falls within the realm of white collar crime and is governed by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Imtiaz Ahmed V. The State PLD 1997 SC 545."
2004 PCr.LJ 1086 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] (Muhammad Ali etc Vs. The State)
"5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties and gone through the judgment of learned Accountability Court as well as judgment impugned. We have thrashed out the entire evidence with eminent assistance of learned counsel. It is worth mentioning here at this juncture that the alleged offence a. its mode of commission falls within the ambit of 'while collar crime" which has its own salient features and peculiar characteristic and therefore, a line of distinction , to be drawn between an ordinary offence and that of a 'white collar crime' which is to be kept in view while evaluating the evidence and approach for such evaluation must be dynamic."
2004 PCr.LJ 102 [karachi] (Javed Iqbal Vs. The State)
'12. It is one of the white collar crimes case which are usually committed planned manner by well- organized persons and they work underhand mechanism. In such cases, the standard of evidence normally the ordinary criminal cases cannot be expected.'
2003 MLD 194 [Karachi] (Abdul Majid Vs. The State)
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in several cases that the white collar crimes of theft or injury as the white collar crimes are directed at against the society at lame end have affected the entire society."
PLD 1997 SC 545 (Imtiaz Ahmad and other Vs. The State etc)
"I may observe that a distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like a theft and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole for the purpose of bail. Similarly, a distinction is to be kept in mind between an offence committed by an individual in his private capacity and an offence committed by a public functionary in respect of or ill connection with his public office for the aforesaid purpose of bail. In the former cases, the practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C in the absence of an exceptional circumstance may be followed, but the latter category, the Courts should be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. In my view, the above category of the offenders belongs to a distinct class and they qualify to be keeled failing within exceptional circumstance of the nature warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence is less than 10 years R.I. for the offence involved provided the Court is satisfied prima facie, there is material on record to connect the accused concerned with the commission of the offence Involved.
The Courts should not be oblivious of the fact that at present Pakistan is confronted with many serious problems/difficulties of national and international magnitude, which cannot be resolved unless the who. Pakistani nation as a united entity makes efforts. The desire to amass wealth by illegal means has penetrated in all walks of life. The people commit offences detrimental to the society end the country for money. Some of the holders of the public office commit or facilitate commission of offences for monetary consideration. In the above scenario the Courts' approach should information-oriented with the des. to suppress the above mischieves."
Writ Petition No. 58123/2022 (Salman Mushtaq Vs. Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc).
"3. There no universal definition of bribery. However, all the definitions agree that it involves someone in a position voluntarily breaching the trust in exchange for a benefit. That benefit may not necessarily involve cash. It can take various forms, such as extravagant gifts, hospitality, expenses, access to riches, or a favour for a relative, friend, or favoured cause. 1 Transparency International defines bribery as "the offering, promising, giving, accepting or soliciting of an advantage as an inducement for action which is illegal, unethical or a breach of trust, Bribery may be active or passive. 'When a person offers, promises or gives a bribe, it is called 'active bribery, and when a person requests, receives or accepts a bribe, it is called passive bribery.
6. Islam condemns bribery and corruption. In Surah Baqara, Verse 188, the Quran commands: And do not consume one another's wealth unjustly or send it [in bribery] to the rulers in order that [they might aid] you (to) consume a portion of the wealth of the people in sin, while you know [it is unlawful]."
120. In this case, the accused also seek exemption/immunity u/s 4(2)(b) of the NAO, 1999 that the Cabinet decisions do not fall with the ambit of this Ordinance and do not constitute any offence. In this regard, the Hon'ble Superior Courts have taken wholistic view by holding that provision of statute cannot be read In Isolation:- PLD 2003 Karachi 127 (Hussain Bux and others vs The State)
"143. ---While applying and interpreting any provision of law In a statute, a very important principle of interpretation of statute is always required to be kept in view that no provision or section in the statute is to be read in isolation. the provisions, of law are to be read in the totality of the scheme and in cohesion with each other, in order to ascertain the intention of the Legislature and the purpose of Yet another principle is also to be kept in view that no provision of law is to be interpreted in a manner which may render another provision of law a superfluous, redundant or nugatory. Even if some apparent discrepancy or contradiction appears in different provisions of a statute it is to be interpreted in a manner that the various provisions are reconciled and the intention/purpose of the law is achieved---"
PLD 2009 Supreme Court 367 (Kamaluddin Qureshi vs Ali International CO.)
"10. While interpreting the statutes an interpretation leading to conflicting judgments is to be avoided as held in Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jehangir and another PLD 2004 SC 219. The intention of the law maker is always gathered by reading the statutes as a whole and meanings are given to each and every word of the whole statute by adopting a harmonious construction-- -."
PLD 2007 Quetta 155 (The State through Regional Director and others vs Fazal Muhammad and others).
"--When a Court is called upon to construe the terms of any provision found as a statute; the court should not confine attention only to the particular provision which falls for consideration but the Court should also consider other parts of the statute which throw light on the intention of legislature end serve to show that the particular provision ought not to be construed as if it stood alone and apart from the rest of the statute. In construing a statute as a whole the Court seeks to achieve two principle results, to clear up absurdity end ambiguities in the law and to make the who of the law and every part of it harmonious and effective. It is equally settled that the meaning of the words used in any portion of the statute must depend upon the context in which they are placed-."
2009 YLR 2049 [Karachi] (DODO vs. The State).
"18. All officials had to act according to law and not otherwise. It would, however, appear that every word used by the legislature must be given its true meaning and provisions be construed together in a harmonious manner. To our mind, it would not be legal and proper to apply one provision of law in isolation to the other as no redundancy can be attributed to the legislature organ of the State."
2019 YLR [Lahore (Multan Bench)] (Aziz Ahmed vs. Syed Irshad Hussain Shah and 18 others).
"-----A Statute is to be read and constructed as a who and the same holistic approach is to be adopted with regard to a particular provision/section thereof and, thus, a provision cannot be dissected into pieces to space a power, otherwise barred--."
PLD 2007 Supreme Court 571 (Fazal Dad vs. Col. (Rtd.) Ghulam Muhammad Malik and others).
"5. In case the aforesaid provisions and contents of F.I.R. are put in a juxta position then section 6 of the said ordinance is not attracted. It is a settled law that preamble is always key interpret the statute. The very object to promulgate the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1947 was to control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in section 6 of the Act and their speedy trial to bring the offence within the ambit of the act, it is essential to examine that the said offence should have nexus with the object of the act and offences coveted by its relevant provisions such as section 6. It is a settled law that provisions of law must be read as a whole in o.er to determine its true nature, import and scope as .law laid down by this Court in Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif case PLD 1993 SC 473.
WP No 2924-P/2021 with IR (Durre Shehwar vs. NAB)
"9. it is trite law that a statute is passed as whole and not in sections and it may well be assumed to be animated by one general purpose and intent. It is thus not safe to adopt the process of etymological dissection and after taking words out of their context a. applying definitions given by lexicographers to proceed to construe the statute on the basis of such definitions. Parliament, enactments must be construed as a whole and their meaning attributed to the words should, as general rule be inspired by the context and the nature and object of the subject matter, for the words may be enlarged or restricted to harmonize with the provisions of statute."
121. The learned defence counsel during the course of final arguments and Imran Ahmed Khan accused while recording his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C raised the question of discrimination in this case, the relevant portion of answer to question No. 76 of the statement is reproduced as under:- "There is a visible haste on the part of the NAB authorities to prosecute me and my wife alone to the exclusion as many as six co-accused named in the NAB Reference. Without full canvas, prosecuting us alone is unjustified, illogical and unfair to say the least."
122. The perusal of record reflects that the remaining six accused have already been declared PO vide order dated 06.01.2024 and their case has been separated from the case of these accused.
After declaring them PO, u/s 87 Cr.P.C further proceedings against them are being carried out u/s 88 Cr.P.C, therefore, the plea of discrimination is destitute of any real basis. The esteemed case law can be relied upon here is:- 2019 SCMR 372 (Malik Din vs. Chairman NAB and another).
8. Moving on to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of NAB was discriminatory, as it had singled out the petitioner to the exclusion of the other hundred housing societies mentioned in the letter of the Standing Committee. We are afraid this jurisprudence that challenging prosecution on the ground of discrimination by the State cannot be complete valid defence to absolve an accused from criminal liability arising from his actions or inactions. Any person charged for a come is answerable for his own acts or omissions and has to defend himself a trial for the said charge offence."
123. Accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi remained Prime Minister of Pakistan from 08.08.2018 to 10.04.2022, and during April 2019, received and obtained illegal monetary benefits from the co- accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since P.O.), co-accused Ahmed Ali Riaz (since P.O.) and the Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. in the shape of land measuring 458 Kanals 04 Marlas 58 sq. ft., through the co- accused Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (since P.O.), under the garb of donation to a non-existing trust, namely the Al-Qadir University Project Trust.
124. The accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, illegally received and obtained the said monetary benefit when neither the Al-Oadir University Project Trust nor the University was in existence, and in return, accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, in connivance with other co-accused, facilitated the illegal and dishonest transfer/adjustment of 171.159 million (GBP) out of 190 million (GBP), meant for the State of Pakistan, into an account designated for the payment of price of land, by the Bahria Town, Karachi, in the name of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, ultimately benefiting co- accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since P.O.), co-accused Ahmed Ali Riaz (since P.O.) and the Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd., which constitutes gross misuse of authority.
125. Co-accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (since P.O.), in connivance and with active knowledge of accused Imran Ahmed Khan with malafide floated note dated 02.12.2019 containing misrepresented information, implying that funds frozen in the UK were to be surrendered to the Supreme Court of Pakistan account knowingly mispresented that the Supreme Court of Pakistan account was being operated for the benefit of the State of Pakistan whereas the same account was meant for the adjustment of private liability of the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd.
126. It is established by the prosecution evidence that accused Imran Ahmed khan Niazi, the then Prime Minister, dishonestly instructed for placing the said note as additional agenda without prior circulation in violation of the provisions of the Rules of Business, 1973, despite the fact. that co- accused Mirza Shahzad Akbar (Since PO), with his connivance and under his influence, had already dishonestly and for ulterior motives signed and submitted the Confidentiality Deed with the National Crime Agency UK on 06.11.19., which was also signed as a witness by the co-accused Zia ul Mustafa Nasim (since PO) and the funds frozen by the NCA UK had already been transferred to the account of the Supreme Court of Pakistan meant for the settlement of the Bahria Town's liability of land to be paid by the co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since PO), prior to the Cabinet meeting on 03.12.2019.
127. It is also proved that the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, while chairing the Cabinet meeting on 03.12.2019, during which the said note was present. in-camera briefing, insisted on granting approval of paragraph 10 of the note and the sealing of the document without allowing any discussion or deliberation on the said additional agenda and, upon his insistence and under his influence, the said additional agenda was got approved without deliberation and discussion and without retrospective approval of signing the Deed of Confidentiality and already transmitted the amount to the account of the Supreme Court of Pakistan designated for the adjustment of Bahria Towns liability.
128. It is also proved that in exchange for these illegal favors extended to co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since P.O.), co-accused Ahmed Ali Riaz (since PO.), and the Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd., under the guise of AI-Qadir University Project Trust, of which the accused Imran Ahmed Khan became the settlor and founder, dishonestly and deliberately obtained material monetary gain, property, valuable things, and pecuniary advantages, including a donation of approximately 458 Kanals of land, funds amounting to Rs. 285 million, the university's building valuing Rs. 284,032,000, and in- kind contribution to the AI-Qadir University Project Trust.
129. It is also proved further, that in exchange of the said illegal favors extend to co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since, PO), co-accused Ahmed Al Riaz (since PO) and Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd, in July and October 2021, the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi dishonestly obtained material monetary gain from the said co-accused in the shape of 240 kanals 06 marlas of land in Mouza Mohra Noor, Islamabad through co-accused Farhat Shehzadi (since PO), who acted as front person of accused Bushra Imran and Imran Ahmed Khan, without consideration.
130. The prosecution has also proved that the accused Bushra Imran Khan being a trustee of the AI-Qadir University Project Trust since its inception alongside her husband, accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, played a significant role in the illegal activities by acknowledging the receipt of property, pecuniary benefits, and other valuable items from the co-accused Malik Riaz Hussain (since PO) through Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limit., and by aiding and abetting and assisting In the commission of crimes by signing the "Acknowledgement of Donation" deed dated March 24, 2021 and also being signatory to the joint account of the AI-Qadir University Project Trust, maintained at the HBL Civic Centre branch Islamabad.
131. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses could not be discredited by the defence side. The prosecution case mainly hinges upon the documentary evidence, which is proved patiently. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has successfully proved it case against both the accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran, through production of cogent, credible, coherent, irrebuttable, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence. Although, some of the witness including I.O/PW-35 had to undergo lengthy and exhaustive cross examination yet the same could not even shake the creditability of these witnesses. During the appreciation, their deposition were found consistent and coherent as a whole. There might be certain minor discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence which are but natural in such like cases of white collar crimes. Despite availing convenient and flexible opportunities, the defence remained failed to create any reasonable dent or doubt fatal for the prosecution case. Even, the documents got exhibited in the defence are of hardly any value for it. Similarly, the esteemed case law put forth by the leaned defence counsel is hardly relevant under the peculiar facts and Circumstances of this case.
132. In view of my findings after appreciation of evidence in this case, both the applications u/s 265-K Cr.P.C filed during the trial by both the accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran separately are hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
133. For what has been discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved its case within the four corners of law, beyond any shadow of doubt, up to the hilt of the guilt of both the accused Imran Ahmed Khan and Bushra Imran, therefore:- i. the accused Imran Ahmed Khan is hereby held guilty for commission of offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined u/s 9(a)(ii)(iv)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. He is hereby convicted. There is no mitigating circumstance. He is sentenced u/s 10(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 14 (fourteen) years and fine amounting to Rs. 1000000, (ten lac), in default whereof to undergo for Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of further six months. The convict is also entitled to the benefit u/s 382 (B) Cr.P.C. ii. the accused Bushra Imran is also hereby held guilty for commission of offence of aiding, assisting, and abetting etc as defined u/s 9(a)(xii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
Therefore, she is also hereby convicted. Her role is only to the extent aiding and abetting of the offences of corruption and corrupt practices, which is considered to be a mitigating circumstance.
She is sentenced under Section 10(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 07 (seven) years and fine amounting to Rs. 500000, (five lac), A default whereof to undergo for Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of further three months.
134. Property of the sham trust 'the AI-Qadir University Project Trust' is hereby forfeited to the Federal Government within the meaning of Section 10(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Both the convicts shall also face the consequences under Section 15 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, Both the convicts are present before the Court, they be taken into custody in this case and be handed over to the Superintendent Jail along with the Committal Warrant to serve the sentences so awarded. Attested copies of this judgment be delivered free of cost to both of the convicts separately, so that they may file appeal etc before the proper forum, if they so desire.
135. File be consigned to record room by Ahmad M. Shakeel after its due completion.