' Sh. IJAZ NISAR, J.---This appeal under Article 7 of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification of Membership) Order, 1977, President's (Post Proclamation) Order No,17 of 1977, has been filed by the Referring Authority (President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) Islamabad, challenging the judgment, dated 7-11-1992, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Lahore, holding that the charges against Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim, Ex-Minister of State, the respondent herein, were not established.
2. The facts in, brief, are that a Reference under PPO No,17 of 1977 was made against the respondent (Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim) Ex-Minister of State for Water and Power and Parliamentary Affairs, on the allegations that being a Member of the National Assembly and the Minister of State, in disregard of the provisions of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, and the rules framed thereunder, committed an act of favouritism, wilful mal-administration and abused his official position by sending a hand-written chit Exh. R/1 to Lt. Gen. (Retd) Zahid Ali Akbar, the then Chairman WAPDA carrying the following direction:-- "GUDDU"
"Mitsubishi should be placed at the lowest. There is perhaps difference of 07%. Kindly help in the matter, you may also short list only two lowest."
' It was further alleged in the Reference that the said direction was factually incorrect, as the rates offered by Mitsubishi were in fact higher by 1.25% as against .07%.
3. The direction of the respondent was ignored and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder i.e, Siemens on 20-12-1989. It is alleged that if, as desired by the respondent, Mitsubishi Company had been awarded the contract, the Government of Pakistan would have suffered a loss of about 9 Crore of Rupees. The above act of the respondent was considered as misconduct, for, he had attempted to show undue favour to Mitsubishi Company by showing it as the lowest bidder.
4. The respondent contested the Reference and denied the charges.
5. In support of the Reference the prosecution examined Lt. Gen. (Retd) Zahid Ali Akbar P.W.1, the then Chairman WAPDA, Sh. Muhammad Siddiq (hand-writing expert) P.W.2, and Malik Shabbir Ahmed P.W.3. According to P.W.3, the disputed chit was written by the respondent in his presence in the porch of VIP lounge at Lahore Airport, on 23rd October, 1989, and was delivered to him for handing over the same to the Chairman WAPDA. The latter confirmed of having received the chit through Malik Shabbir Ahmad P.W. Sh. Muhammad Din, Assistant Director (hand-writing expert)
F.I.A. P.W., after comparison of the handwriting on Exh. R/1 with the handwriting of the respondent stated that it was in his handwriting.
6. In rebuttal, the respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence besides appearing as his own witness as R.W.6. He also examined Tanvir Ali Mian, handwriting expert, as R.W.3, who denied that the disputed chit Exh.R/1 was in the handwriting of the respondent. The respondent in his statement categorically denied having sent any chit or communication to the then Chairman WAPDA in respect of the tenders mentioned in the Reference.
7. The learned Special Court after a detailed analysis/discussion of the material brought on record by both the parties answered the Reference in the negative. Hence, this appeal by the Referring Authority.
8. It is contended that the learned Special Court had misdirected itself in deciding the Reference and erred in ignoring material evidence in support of the charge resulting in grave miscarriage of justice with a prayer to set aside the judgment passed by the Special Court and to hold the respondent guilty of misconduct as defined in PPO-17 of 1977.
9. The important point to be determined is as to whether the respondent had misused his official position by attempting to influence the Chairman WAPDA in the matter of award of contract for the construction/installation of a power station at Guddu. As per prosecution allegations, the chit R.1 was written by respondent on 23-10-1989 in the porch of the VIP lounge of Lahore Airport, but this fact stands belied by copy of the certificate of proceedings of the National Assembly Exh. RW1/3 and Exh. RW1/1, copy of the Register of attendance maintained by the Assembly showing that the respondent had attended the session of National Assembly on 23-10-1989. Malik Shabbir Ahmad P.W., stands further belied by the record of entries of persons, who had passed through the VIP lounge of the Lahore Airport from 21-10-1989 to 24-10-1989, as the name of the respondent does not find mention in the relevant documents of the passengers, who had boarded the plane through the VIP lounge during the said period. The allegation in the charge-sheet that the respondent had written the chit Exh.R/1 when he was Minister for Water and Power is falsified by the statement of Gen. (Retd) Zahid Ali Akbar, the then Chairman WAPDA, who stated that at the relevant time the respondent was not the Minister of State for Water and Power but was Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.
10. According to the prosecution evidence, the process of short listing of tenders had been completed in July 1989 with the help of the foreign experts. If this was so, there could be no significance of the respondent's writing the disputed chit to the Chairman WAPDA on 23-10-1989.
The Chairman WAPDA could not advance any plausible reason for preserving the disputed chit particularly when it was not addressed to him, nor it bore the signature or initials of the respondent.
The chit in question was delivered to him in October 1989, while the Reference against the respondent was filed on 3-9-1990.
11. Malik Shabbir Ahmad P.W., 3, who was given the disputed chit by the respondent for its delivery to the Chairman WAPDA, could not satisfactorily explain as to why he was selected by the respondent for the said job. He also failed to give the purpose of his visit to the house of the respondent on the relevant date. He is a private person and had no connection whatsoever with the Chairman WAPDA. There is absolutely no corroboration of his testimony that the chit Exh. R/1 was written in his presence. His statement that the respondent did not have any diary or paper and that he had torn out a paper from his diary on which the said writing was made appears to be ridiculous and hard to believe. From the statement of Malik Shabbir Ahmad P.W., it appears that the entire writing on the disputed chit was scribed by the respondent, but his stand is belied by the handwriting expert P.W.2, who in answer to the Court question stated that the word 'Guddu' at the bottom of chit Exh.R/1 had been written by a different person with a different pen and ink and that the characteristics of the word Guddu were totally different from the characteristics of the other writing on Exh.R/1. It is an admitted fact that the chit in question was undated, unsigned and did not even bear the name of the addressee.
12. As regards the nature of inquiry under PPO No,17 of 1977, a reference may be made to Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 492) where it was observed that since the inquiry is pursued by the State, therefore, it impliedly relates to a criminal wrong indicating that the inquiry intended was of a criminal or quasi criminal nature. The same view was expressed in the case of Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot in Criminal Original No,14 of 1949 reported as PLD 1950 Lahore 12. It is well settled that a conclusion reached by the Trial Court in criminal or quasi criminal matters is interfered with only in exceptional circumstances on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice.
13. Applying the above test to the facts and circumstances of the present case we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Special Court, for, there is no misreading of evidence or non-consideration of any material piece of evidence. Consequently, finding no force in the appeal we dismiss the same.