' S.A. RABBANI, J.---The applicant was Minister for Food and Agriculture in the Province of Sindh in 1997 when the Food Department granted a contract to one Hassan Ali of Messrs Mast Hassan Enterprises for lifting and transportation of wheat to Food Department of the Government of Sindh at Karachi during a period when the Government had imposed ban on movement of wheat from interior of Sindh to Karachi. With reference to grant of this contract, the NAB Authorities filed Reference No,46 of 2000 against the present applicant, said Hassan Ali, and two officers of the Food Department. It was alleged in the Reference that accused persons, in collusion and in connivance with each other, and in violation of law, through deceitful means, obtained an illegal end, wrongful gain, amounting to Rs,1,38,85,700 and caused a huge loss to the public exchequer.
2. This application was, therefore, filed for quashment of the proceedings before the Accountability Court on the basis of the said Reference against the present applicant. Notice of this application was given to the respondents and Mr. Raja Qureshi, Advocate-General, appeared on behalf of the Government of Sindh. He also filed power on behalf of the other respondent viz National Accountability Bureau.
3. At the stage of arguments, the learned Advocates, appearing for the parties were told that there is nothing in this case requiring it to be kept pending, after admission, and the whole matter be decided finally at this stage.
4. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned counsel for the applicant, advanced his arguments on behalf of the applicant, on 3-10-2001, and Mr. Raja Qureshi, Advocate-General, submitted the comments filed by the Food Department, Government of Sindh, but sought time to seek instructions from NAB Authorities. The time was allowed and the matter was again heard today.
5. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was Minister for Food and Agriculture at the relevant time and it was his responsibility to make arrangement for food supplies to the population in the Province of Sindh and as there was a wheat crisis in Karachi in those days, he arranged proper supplies of wheat to the citizens living in Karachi. He submitted that the applicant, by doing so, performed his duty under the law and he has not violated any provision of law. He further submitted that his conduct has not violated any provision of law. He further submitted that his conduct has not caused any financial loss to the public exchequer. He stated that the contract was not awarded by the applicant but it was done by the Food Department in accordance of its normal functions. Mr. Kamal Azfar contended that practically there was no loss to the Government and the contractor had given an undertaking to safeguard the Government stock and took the responsibility of all shortages. He submitted that a huge amount of the contractor is due to the Government and if there is any loss, it can be met out of it.
Mr. Kamal Azfar further submitted that earlier an inquiry' was conducted in this behalf and the recommendation was for closing of the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a number of authorities of the Supreme Court with regards to the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In order to do real and substantial justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
6. Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned Advocate-General, Sindh, as well as Advocate for NAB Authorities in this case, submitted that the application may be admitted. It was suggested to him that there appears no wisdom in admitting this application and postpone it to a future date for the same decision that can be made even now. On this, he sought time to seek instruction from NAB Authorities.
7. Today, Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned A.-G, Sindh and counsel for the NAB Authorities, appeared with the instruction and submitted that he had been instructed by the NAB Authorities to concede for admission of the application and for an order to stay the proceedings before the Accountability Court. He further suggested that the applicant may also be granted bail for the period of pendency of the proceedings before the Accountability Court.
8. Mr. Raja Qureshi, under the instructions of the NAB Authorities, submitted that the applicant has not caused any loss to the Government and the loss was not caused by award of the disputed contract.
9. The Reference filed by the NAB Authorities mentions violation of law by the present applicant and other accused persons. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, was asked to specify the provisions of law that were violated. Mr. Raja Qureshi has not pointed out any provision of law that has been violated in this case by the applicant.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant informed that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined by the Accountability Court but it was in the absence of the applicant. Mr. Raja Qureshi submitted that the evidence recorded is under section 512, Cr.P.C. And the witnesses were not subjected to cross-examination by, or on behalf of, the present applicant. Mr. Qureshi further submitted that the provisions of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Or 249-A, Cr.P.C. Are not available in the proceedings before the Accountability Court in view of the observations in the case of 'Khan Asfandyar Wali v. The State' (PLD 2001 SC 607).
11. As it is conceded on behalf of the NAB Authorities that the applicant has neither caused any loss to the Government nor violated any law there is no justification to prosecute him. In view of these facts, admission of this application, with grant of bail and stay of proceeding before the Accountability Court, is neither rational nor logical course. There is no eventuality that can be visualized for adjournment of the proceedings in this application nor any purpose would be served by staying proceedings before the Accountability Court as the applicant has neither caused any loss to the Government, as conceded by the learned Advocate for the respondents, nor has violated any law. His prosecution, therefore, will be an abuse of law and procedure.
12. In the circumstances mentioned above, this is case where there is full justification for exercise of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings before the Accountability Court against present applicant, in connection with Reference No,46 of 2000, are quashed.