1. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.--- In this Constitutional petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs.
2. "(a) It may be directed and declared that the respondents have no authority to call the petitioners under section 19 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, as no case is or can be registered against the petitioners and there is no such case pending before the respondents.
(b) It may also be declared and directed that since purchase of the house in question bearing No, C-95, Block-8, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi was executed in between the private parties, the respondents have nothing to do with the same.
(c) Grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, representatives, police or anybody claiming on their behalf, not to harass the petitioner and so also not to arrest them, or take any action without observing due course of law.
(d) Grant cost of the petition; and
(e) Pass any other/appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit according to the circumstances of the case."
3. ' The brief facts leading to this Constitutional petition as stated in the memo. Of petition are that house bearing No,C-95, Block-8, Gulshane-lqbal, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the demised property") was purchased by one deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood from one Sadiq Hussain son of Ghulam Muhammad by an agreement of sale, dated 16-10-1988 for a sum of Rs, 29,50,000 and after her death the petitioners being the husband and son of deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood, her sole surviving heirs became the joint owners thereof. It was further stated that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 without any cause or reason have started summoning the petitioners to their office where they were treated improperly and outraged by respondent No,2, who by misbehaving with them put them under severe mental torture. They also alleged harassment, use of abusive language and demand of bribe by the respondents. It was further stated that on their refusal to meet the illegal demands of respondents Nos. 2 .And 3 they were being continuously harassed by respondents Nos.
4. 2 and 3 who are issuing them threats' for their arrest. It was further stated that as there was no other proper and alternate forum for redress of their grievances, they invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by filing the above Constitutional petition.
5. ' Both respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their respective counter-affidavits, wherein they denied the contents of the memo. Of petition and submitted that the petition was not maintainable as the same was filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. They further submitted that they had never taken the law in their hands and further that it were the petitioners who had approached this Court with unclean hands. They further submitted that the demised property was purchased by one Muhammad Tayyab, one of the directors of Messrs Alliance Motors in the name of his wife Mst.
6. Samina and this property was amongst the assets/properties of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J.
7. Ibrahim & Co. Against whom investigation was pending before respondent No,1. They further submitted that Mst. Samina wife of Muhammad Tayyab had appeared in this Court in J.M. No, 1 of 1989 and made a categorical statement that the demised property was purchased by her husband Muhammad Tayyab in her name from the funds of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. They denied to have caused harassment to the petitioners or to have used abusive or derogatory language. They further submitted that the petitioners had claimed the ownership of the demised property in their favor through deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood but deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood could never be deemed to be the lawful owner of the demised property as no conveyance-deed was ever executed in her favor by the previous owner. They further submitted that they had issued notices to the occupants of the demised property, who according to them, was one Muhammad Ashraf, but surprisingly it was the petitioners who appeared and claimed to have been called by respondents. Nos. 2 and 3 and made wild allegations of having been harassed, which clearly suggested that the petitioners have concocted and fabricated a false story for misguiding and obtaining the sympathies of this Court. They categorically denied to have used abusive language, demanding bribe or causing harassment to the petitioners and prayed that the petition was liable to be dismissed. Both the petitioners filed their affidavits in rejoinder, denying the contents of the counter-affidavits filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and reiterated the facts stated in the memo. Of petition.
8. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. Khawaja Sharful Islam, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. H.K.
9. Sohail Rana, the learned Additional Prosecutor NAB appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 and have perused the material on record.
10. ' From the material available on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is established that respondent No,1 is in the process of making investigation against the directors/partners of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrauim & Co. Who had swindled crores of rupees of the public which they had collected from the public at large by way of deposit on the promise that the said amounts after invested in various profitable business, trade and commercial activities would fetch high rate of profit to the depositors. Subsequently, after swindling the money so collected by them in the name of the deposits from the public the directors/partners/members of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. Went underground. Investigations were undertaken against them which included enquiries with regard to identifying the immovable properties belonging to Messrs Alliance Motors and T.J. Ibrahim & Co. And/or the Directors/ partners/members of the above two establishments or any other establishment having connections with Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. And the directors/partners thereof. It transpires that after the establishment of National Accountability Bureau the matter was referred to it as the other agencies who were investigating the case had not been able to identify either the properties of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. Or the directors/partners thereof. In consequence of the matter having been entrusted to respondent No,1 for enquiry/investigation, respondents Nos.2 and 3 issued notices to the occupants of the demised property which happened to be the petitioners. As the petitioners claimed themselves to be the owners of the demised property, which according to respondents was suspected to be a property purchased from the funds/money deposited by the people, their presence was required in the office of respondents Nos.2 and 3 for interrogation as to the manner in which they had become the owners of the demised property. According to the information collected by the respondents the same was purchased in the name of one Samina wife of Muhammad Tayyab, a director of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. According to the statement of Mst. Samina wife of Muhammad Tayyab recorded in this Court in J.M. No, 1 of 1989 the demised property was given to one Muhammad Ashfaq for occupation, who fraudulently and collusively disposed of and transferred the same firstly in the name of one Sadiq and thereafter in the name of deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood. Mst.
11. Samina categorically denied to have signed or executed any sale agreement, sale-deed, transfer documents or any other conveyance documents relating to the demised property in favor of any person:and stated that the transfer of the demised property initially to Sadiq and later on the deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood were made by forging her signatures and were fraudulent and void transactions.
12. ' From narration of the above facts it is to be observed that it is the case of the respondents that the title of the demised property in favor of the petitioners is not beyond doubt and suspicion. A reasonable inference can be drawn that the demised property was originally purchased by one of the directors of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. But in order to avoid the demised property from being taken over by the concerned officials/agency for disposal thereof for depositing the sale proceeds thereof in a pool to be established for collecting the money and sale proceeds of the properties of Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. For refund/distribution thereof amongst the creditors of the said establishments/persons. For this purpose they had in all probability transferred the demised property in the name `of other persons. Therefore, the question arises whether the alleged transfer was bona fide transfer or was made with mala fide and ulterior motive to save the property by establishing that it was not the property owned by Messrs Alliance Motors/T.J. Ibrahim & Co. And/or by any director/partner thereof. By filing the above Constitutional petition the petitioners are trying to thwart the investigation being carried out by the respondents with a view to ascertain the ownership of the demised property regarding which doubt and suspicion exists. In the circumstances instead of filing this petition, the petitioners ought to have appeared before the respondents to establish that their claim of ownership in respect of the demised property was valid and legal and no fraud or illegality was committed in acquiring the title thereof. It is also to be noted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and had made concealment of vital and material facts which if disclosed would disentitle them to the equitably and discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As such it can be said without any doubt that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and have disentitled themselves to any relief, if any at all, available to them.
13. ' The petition requires decision on disputed, intricate and controverted questions of fact which cannot be decided without recording evidence of the parties and/or relevant witnesses including Mst. Samina Tayyab, who as per her statement in this Court in J.M. No,1 of 1989 claimed to have purchased the demised property and levelled allegations of fraud and forgery in transfer thereof in favor of deceased Mst. Sakina Dawood through whom the petitioners claim ownership in respect thereof. Recording of evidence is not undertaken by this Court while proceeding with a Constitutional petition in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
14. ' Upon the above discussion it was found that this Constitutional petition was misconceived and also without any substance. By a short order dated 23-1-2003 it was dismissed in limine alongwith the miscellaneous application pending therein for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order.