' ABDUL AHMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner through this petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-7-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No,4991 of 2003 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the instant petition are that petitioner's husband (Khalifa Abdul Qayyum) and co-accused, namely, Nisar Ahmed, Muhammad Irfan Iqbal, Mian Qurban Ali, Mian Abdul Razzaq, Tahir Nisar Mirza, Muhammad Siddique Dhillon, Shaukat Ali Bhatti, Muhammad Aslam Bajwa, Rashid Ahmed Khan, Qazi Naseer Ahmed and Nazir Ahmed vide Reference No,8 of 2003 were sent up to face trial on 8-4-2003 before Accountability Court No,5, Lahore under section 18(g) read with section 24 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"). The case of prosecution in the above referred Reference briefly, stated is that co- accused Nisar Ahmed floated a Company in the name of Messrs Irfan Seamless Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. G.T. Road, Salamatpura, Lahore(hereinafter referred to as "the Company") showing himself as its Chief Executive. On 6-6-1992, the Company requested Secretary Survey and Rebate, C.B.R., Islamabad for issuance of Provisional Certificates under S.R.O.No,510(I)/91, dated 30-5-1991 for import of raw material to manufacture special precision shafting of iron and alloy steel. In the said application, the Company did not claim to be the manufacturer of seamless pipes and instead claimed to be the manufacturer of special precision shafting only. On 9-6-1992, the Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax sent a telex to co-accused Shaukat Ali Bhatti, requiring to provide the list of machinery installed in the premises of the Company who on 10-6-1992 directed Syed Tahir Ahmed, the then Assistant Director to do needful. On the same day, a list of machinery verified by deceased Khurshid Hassan, Superintendent, co-accused Qazi Naseer Ahmed, Deputy Superintendent and Muhammad Aslam Bajwa, Deputy Superintendent (CE&ST) wrongly confirmed that the Company had sufficient in-house facilities for manufacturing of special precision shafting of iron and alloy steel. On the receipt of information on 25-6-1992, Secretary again wrote letter to co-accused Shaukat Ali Bhatti asking for verification of the list of machinery provided and installed, who confirmed the same on 10-6-1992 about in-house facilities mentioned above. In addition,' he also wrongly confirmed the existence/availability of 31 machines of the company. As such, a- Provisional Certificate Was issued under S.R.O., which fact was not warranted, and was a favour shown to accused Nisar Ahmed and the Company.
3. It was on 22-8-1992, a complaint was received from Messrs Haffaz Seamless Pipe Industries (Pvt.)
Ltd., Industrial Estate Nooriabad, District Dadu, that the Company was not the manufacturer of seamless pipes, hence was not eligible for any concession under above mentioned S.R.O. However, the above mentioned Provisional Certificate was further amended on 27-7-1992 whereby the Company was permitted the import of round billets as raw material without payment of duties. On 26-8-1993 another complaint was received by C.B.R. Islamabad, upon which co-accused Shaukat Ali Bhatti was required to provide a sample product and physical inspection by an officer not less than a Deputy Collector. In response whereof, in February, 1993, a false report was prepared by Khalid Naseem, the then Deputy Director that the Factory was under construction and the machinery was in the process of installation. This fact indicated that false survey report regarding availability of machinery and in-house facilities was prepared by petitioner's husband, and his co- accused, namely, Shaukat Ali Bhatti, Muhammad Aslam Bajwa, Rashid Ahmed Khan, Qazi Naseer Ahmed and Nazir Ahmed in order to favour the Company. To further favouring S.R.O. No,146(I)/93 was notified in supersession of earlier S.R.O.No,510(I)/91, and in doing so, the area of its applicability was widened in such a manner as to extend its benefits to even those companies which were not manufacturing seamless pipes. As a result of this, accused Nisar Ahmad was able to import raw material without payment of duties/taxes etc. Thereafter on 21-7-1993 a survey of the premises of the Company was undertaken and a false and fake report was prepared. Even a false report regarding consumption of raw material at the site by the Company in respect of import made by the Company in April-May, 1993 was prepared by the official accused. After investigation, it was found that official accused in collusion with the Company caused corresponding loss of Rs,1,43,80,23,112 to Government Exchequer and thus, committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined in clauses (iv), (vi) and (vii) of section 9(a) punishable under section 10 of the 'Ordinance. Petitioner's husband along with other co-accused preferred respective writ petitions for grant of bail before learned Lahore High Court which were dismissed vide impugned judgment.
4. We have heard Mr. M. Bilal, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Jaffar Hashmi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the NAB at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Mr. Muhammad Bilal, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, mainly contended that even as per case of the prosecution no overt act of any sort has been assigned to petitioner's husband. According to him, he has not acted in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the Custom Authorities or Government except that survey was conducted by him to watch the production and also to determine the production and wastage. Such survey report was signed by three co-accused, namely, Khalid Naseem, the then Deputy Director, Khurshid Hassan (deceased) and Sarfraz Ahmed Warraich, the then Assistant Director (S&R) except the husband of the petitioner, the then Technical Officer, Survey and Rebate Collectorate, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore. Thus, allegation that he acted in deceitful, dishonest manner, in violation of the rules and abetted the import of raw material without payment of taxes, therefore, caused loss to the Government Exchequer, is without any substance. According to him, even otherwise by non-signing the survey report, his case become that of further inquiry and is entitled to the concession of bail.
6. On the other side, Mr. Jaffar Hashmi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for NAB controverted the above contentions and argued that petitioner's husband being Principal Appraiser Officer was wholly responsible and simply by not signing the survey report, he cannot be absolved from the criminal liability. It was in connivance with the petitioner's husband and other accused, Customs Department as well asGovernment sustained a loss of Rs,1,43,80,23,112 thus, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence to connect him with the commission of offence, as such, is not entitled to the concession of bail.
7. The contention that no overt act of any sort is assigned against petitioner's husband is devoid of force. Admittedly, he being the then Technical Officer watched the survey of Messrs Irfan Seamless Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Limited, and it was under his supervision that a fake and false survey report was prepared which was signed by three co-accused, namely, Khalid Naseem, the then Deputy Director, Khurshid Hassan (deceased) and Sarfraz Ahmed Warraich, the then Assistant Director (S&R). In fact there was neither any machinery installed by the Company nor there were any other in-house facilities to manufacture special precision shafting of iron and alloy steel. Mere not signing such survey report would not absolve him from culpability in the commission of offence. He being Principal Appraiser Officer and the only technical expert, was duty bound to report the real facts to his high-ups and by not doing so, it prima facie, transpires that he in connivance with other co-accused have caused loss to the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs,1,43,80,23,112. It is settled principle of law that an elaborate sifting of evidence cannot be made at the time of deciding bail application but only tentative assessment of the same is to be made. Thus, prima facie there appears to be a reasonable ground disentitling the petitioner's husband, namely, Khalifa Abdul Qayyum, to the concession of bail.
8. Accordingly, petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.