' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 10-10- 2001 and 31-10-2001, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Appeals Nos.18, 19, 25 and 27 of 2001, respectively, wherein common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Mir Faiq Ali Jamali, Ex-Minister Provincial Labour and Manpower Balochistan, Hafeez-ur-Rehman, Ex-Secretary, Labour and Manpower, Balochistan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ramzan, ex-Deputy Commissioner, Jaffarabad by misusing their authority and power had obtained land bearing Khasra Nos.430, 431/2, 432/2, 433/2 and 434/4 being waterlogged and saline, for the purpose of construction of labour colony and hospital at Dera Allah Yar that in fact another piece of land was selected, but the aforementioned land was selected only to misappropriate the said amount and in determining the price proper procedure was not adopted and the amount was released unauthorizedly by petitioner Hafeez-ur-Rehman at the instance of petitioner Mir Faiq Ali Jamali causing loss of Rs,50,00,000 to the public exchequer. The charge was framed on 3-10-2000 which was denied by the petitioners. To proveits case, the prosecution produced as many as 6 witnesses.
3. The petitioners were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. And also got recorded their statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And in defence produced Agha Shireen Khan (D.W.1), who stated that he did not sign Article A/60.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for tthe parties, the learned Judge Accountability Court vide judgment dated 21-4-2001, convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-- ' Petitioner Mir Faiq Ali Jamali under section 10-A of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 to suffer 5 years' R.I.
And fine of Rs,60,00,000 and further debarred from taking part in any election nor can hold any public office for 21 years and cannot obtain loan from any financial institution for ten years, ' Petitioners Hafeezur Rehman and Chaudhry Muhammad Ramzan have been convicted under section 10-A of the NAB Ordinance for two years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,5,00,000 each, and further disqualified from taking part in any election nor can hold any public office for 21 years and also cannot obtain loan from any financial, institution for ten years.
' Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeals in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, which were dismissed with some modification. Hence, these petitions.
6. Dr. A. Basit learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petitions Nos.63-Q, 274 and 289 of 2001, inter alia, contended that the acquisition of the land was properly made; that final selection of the site was made by the Workers Welfare Fund and not by petitioner Hafeezur Rehman, and his role was to ensure that the selected site was to be acquired and that he was unlawfully punished for misuse of his powers; that sufficient evidence was not produced by the prosecution to establish the crime against the petitioner, and also the evidence so adduced is not sufficient for passing the conviction against the petitioner.
7. Ch. Naseer Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner Mir Faiq Ali. Jamali, in Criminal Petitions Nos.64-Q and 288 of 2001, inter alia, contended that adequate, reliable and trustworthy evidence was not produced by the prosecution, therefore, the conviction is based on surmises and conjectures; that it was also false that Riaz Ahmad was front man of petitioner Mir Faiq Ali Jamali and that it was statutory and legal duty of the Deputy Commissioner to have acquired the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Furthermore, misuse of authority, in any case, against the petitioner is not proved through cogent and reliable evidence.
8. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Rakhshani, Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB supported the impugned judgment by contending that the prosecution produced sufficient, convincing are reliable ocular evidence as well as documentary evidence, which was exhibited during the trial; that the Courts below after properly going through the evidence and record convicted the petitioners in accordance with law; that the prosecution had proved its case that action of petitioner Muhammad Ramzan in selecting the site for construction of the Labour Colony was not in accordance with the requirements of the Land Acquisition Act, because he misused his powers in acquiring the land at the behest of Mir Faiq Ali Jamali, the then Provincial Minister for Labour and Manpower, Balochistan. So far as petitioner Hafeezur Rehman is concerned, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General pointed out that the petitioner was holding different positions i.e, Secretary, Labour and Manpower, Balochistan as well as Ex-Officio Chairman of the Workers Welfare Fund and that the colony was to be constructed under his direct supervision, in which he miserably failed and did not perform his duty according to law, rather arranged and facilitated payment to Riaz Ahmad who was proved through evidence to be a front man of Mir Faiq Ali Jamali; that Mir Faiq Ali Jatnali at the relevant time was MPA and he used undue influence upon the then Chief Minister and under his pressure the then Chief Minister directed his Principal Secretary, who wrote letter to petitioners Hafeezur Rehman and Muhammad Ramzan, for releasing of the funds immediately and all this was done on the very same day.
9. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also minutely examined the record. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot prevail being bereft of substance. Admittedly, the land so acquired was not suitable for the construction of the Labour Colony as provided under the scheme, but petitioners Muhammad Ramzan and Hafeezur Rehman with ulterior motive selected the site and made the payment, which resulted in the great loss to the public exchequer. It is also manifest from the record that the petitioners did not perform their duties according to law, and to a certain extent they facilitated the beneficiary to get enhanced compensation of the land, which was otherwise not suitable for the Labour Colony. Petitioners Muhammad Ramzan and Hafeezur Rehman have not taken into consideration the required provisions of law for acquisition of land or selecting the same for construction of the Labour Colony and they have misused their official position which resulted in the loss of public exchequer. Through evidence it has been proved that petitioner Mir Faiq Ali Jameli, being a Provincial Minister, used pressure through the then Chief Minister, who wrote letter for immediate release of the funds. The prosecution through trustworthy and reliable evidence, which stand unrebutted during the trial, had proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
10. In our considered view, the impugned, judgments of the High Court are based on the proper appreciation of the principles of law laid down by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice, which are not open to exception.
11. For the facts and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that these petitions are without merit and substance, which are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.