JAVED IQBAL, J.---The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal, arising out of the same judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court on 5th November, 2003 whereby criminal Ehtasab Appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners were dismissed and judgment dated 21-6-2003 passed by the learned Accountability Court Balochistan, Quetta, in Reference No,11 of 2002 whereby the petitioners were found guilty under section 9(a)(vi) read with section 10 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, has been kept intact, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Precisely stated that facts of the case are that the Chairman NAB, pursuant to the provisions as contemplated in section 18(g) idea with section 24 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, filed a Reference alleging therein that the petitioners while performing their duties in different capacities in PTCL, Quetta, with effect from 1994 to 1997 installed telephone connections bearing Nos.833298, 834566, 832736, 832411, 834088, 837748, 834726, 830584, 833342, 834081, 834910, 820002, 832559, 831848, 834796, 832100, 833956 and 832784 by using fake and forged documents in the name of fictitious persons which were used as PCO's and subsequently disconnected on account of non-payment of bills and resultantly PTCL suffered a huge loss amounting to Rs,44,924,99. After completion of necessary formalities, the petitioners were convicted tinder section 9(a)(vi) of the NAB Ordinance and sentenced as follows:-
(i) The appellant Muhammad Ali was convicted under section 10 read with 11 and 12 of the NAB Ordinance and sentenced to three years R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,1,75,695. The property of the appellant was also forfeited as set off against the amount of fine
(ii) The appellants Arif Javed, Muhammad Amin, Karamat Hussian, Abdul Samad and Abdul Qayyum were convicted under section 10 read with sections II and 12 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 and each of them was sentenced to three years R.I. And to pay fine of rupees nine lacs. The assets/properties of each of the appellants were also forfeited as set off against the payment of fine. In case of non-recovery of the amount of fine each of them was directed to further undergo six months R.I.
(iii) Benefit of section 382-J3, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to all the appellants. They were also disqualified to hold public office or contest election and apply for or allow any financial facility in the form of loan or advance from any bank or financial institute for a period of 10 years."
3. Heard Messrs Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Muhammad Ali (CrI.P. 67 of 2003), Syed. Ayaz ,Zahoor, -learned Advocate Supreme Court for Muhammad Amin (Crl.P.69 of 2003t and Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, learned Advocate Supreme Court for Karamat Hussain and Abdul Samad (Crl.P.70 of 2003). It is mainly contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution has failed miserably to substantiate the accusation by producing cogent and concrete documentary or oral evidence which aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned High Court which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that the evidence which ha., come on record has not been appreciated with diligent application of mind and punishment has been awarded on conjectural presumptions without examining the duties of each of the petitioner causing serious prejudice against them. It is also argued that in fact recovery of the payment of bills could not have been made by the revenue section of PTCL and petitioners have been made scapegoat for the commission of alleged offences. It is urged with vehemence that minor lapses or irregularities cannot be equated with that of a criminal offence and at the best disciplinary action could have been initiated against the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the telephones in question were installed at the places which were shown in the application forms duly attested by the Notary Public/Oath Commissioner and thus no error whatsoever has been committed by the petitioners. It is subsequently argued by Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Advocate Supreme Court, that Muhammad Amin being S.D.O. Of PTCL cannot be held responsible for the installation of such telephones as the matter does not fall within his domain of duty but on the contrary it was for the Superintendent concerned and Line Man to get such telephones installed at the relevant places. It is also pointed out by Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned ASC, that Muhammad Amin was SDO (External) and that he had nothing to do such installations.' Mr.S.A.M. Quadri, learned A.S.,C while arguing the case on behalf of Karamat Hussain and Abdul Samad submitted that they being little fry in the PTCL, have committed no offence as they have absolutely no concern whatsoever with the installation of any connection and hence the question of any liability qua the huge loss sustained by PTCL does not arise. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned A.S.C. While arguing the case of.
Muhammad All contended that no offence whatsoever has been committed by him as the telephone bearing No,834088 was got installed in his name and that too without his knowledge which does not constitute any offence or criminal liability. It is urged vehemently that no false and fabricated document was ever prepared and used for the installation of telephone No,834088. It is pointed out that he was serving in PTCL and for the sake of arguments even if it is admitted, that the said telephone was got installed by him would hardly render any assistance to the case of prosecution as by doing so no offence has been committed. It is also argued that provisions as contained in section 9(a)(vi) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 cannot be made applicable in view of the nature of allegation.
4. Mr. M. S. Rakhshani, Deputy Prosecutor General, appeared on behalf of NAB and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein with further submission that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioners to the hilt and no illegality whatsoever has been committed either by the Accountability Court or the learned High Court. It is argued that evidence which has come on record has been appreciated in its true perspective and question of any injustice does not arise.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties and gone through the judgment of learned Accountability Court as well as judgment impugned. We have thrashed out the entire evidence with eminent assistance of learned counsel. It is worth- mentioning here at this juncture that the alleged offence and its mode of commission fall within the ambit of "white collar crime" which has its own salient features and peculiar characteristic and therefore, a line of distinction is to be drawn between an ordinary offence and that of a "white collar crime" which is to be kept in view while evaluating the evidence and approach for such evaluation must be dynamic so that conjectural presumptions and hyper technical hitches having no nexus with the merits of the case could be eliminated. After having gone through the entire record and prosecution evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition, we are of the view that prosecution has established the accusation beyond shadow of doubt by producing worthy of credence evidence.
6. We have examined the case of each petitioner in the light of chart of duties duly incorporated in the judgment impugned as an attempt has been made by all the learned counsel to show that it was not the duty of petitioners to perform certain acts and therefore, commission or omission if any could not be attributed to them. In so far as Muhammad Amin is concerned being SDO, was responsible for overall supervision in installation of telephones. Technical aspects of such installations are specifically required to be examined by Karamat Hussain, being Engineering Supervisor and Abdul Samad, being Technician including inspection, checking and testing of such installation under the general supervision of Muhammad Amin who being SDO External is responsible for all these activities which take place outside the office of PTCL regarding installation of new telephones. It is to be noted that Muhammad Amin being SDO External is also responsible for physical inspection of such installations enabling him to check the genuineness and authenticity of testing report etc. Which are required to be prepared by Engineering Supervisor with the assistance of Technician concerned for further action by the SDO. It is to be noted that the duties of SDO, Engineering Supervisor and Technician are so interconnected and inter linked that they cannot be separated as has been attempted to show by Mr.S.A.M Quadri. The inspection of the spot where new telephone is to be installed and testing of new installation are required to be done by the SDO and Engineering Supervisor. It would be too much to hold that only the Lineman is responsible for all what had happened as pressed time and again by the learned counsel. It must not be lost sight of that Lineman figures in after receiving the advice slip and he has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the said installation. The feasibility report could not have been prepared without having examined the premises, physical inspection and other technical aspects concerning installation of new telephones. The feasibility report was found signed by Muhammad Amim, SDO and Karamat Hussain, Engineering Supervisor but the new installations were not installed in the premises where it should have been done. This was also in contravention of the advice slip which resulted into a huge loss worth whereof runs into millions as the fake subscribers could not be traced out subsequently by whom such telephones were used but payment of the bills was never made. Resultantly, PTCL sustained huge loss. After having gone through the prosecution evidence specially the statements of Hussain Yousaf (P.W.12), Fazal Hussain ,(PW-13), Malik Muhammad Dawood-Kasi (P.W.14), Muhammad Salim (PW-15), Abdul Khaliq (P.W.19) and Muhammad Alam (P.W.23), the only inescapable conclusion would be that such installation could not have been installed without the active connivance of Muhammad Amin, Karamt Hussain and Abdul Samad with the subscribers and thus the A provisions as contained in section 9(a)(vi) of NAB Ordinance would be fully attracted. The slackness and lapses on the part of revenue section for the recovery of amount due is really serious but it cannot absolve the petitioners from the commission of alleged offence.
7. We have also adverted to the evidence which has come against Muhammad Ali. There is no denying the fact that the telephone bearing No,834088 was got installed by him in his house which cannot be without his willingness and knowledge. A careful scrutiny of the statement of Muhammad Alam (P.W.23) would reveal that the said telephone was never installed in his house but on the contrary the said installation was made on the/basis of photo copy of identity card which had been used by Muhammad Ali as he had access, to it being an employee of PTCL. In this context, we have gone through the statement of Ahmed Khan (P.W.20) who made it abundant clear that the said telephone was installed in the house of Muhammad Ali at the direction of Salah- ud-Din who is absconder. Muhammad Ali had used the said telephone knowingly that he was not so authorized as it was an illegal installation. It has also come on record that payment of bill qua telephone No,834088 was made by Muhammad Ali which amounts to admission of utilization of such telephone. It is pointed out that payment of bill was not voluntary act but it was so done as Muhammad All wanted to save his skin on one hand and his employment on the other. All the petitioners had played their active role in illegal installation of various telephones details whereof have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs which were used by the subscribers privately as well as PCO's which caused a huge loss to PTCL.
8. In the light of what has been stated herein above, we are of the considered view that no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the Accountability Court determination whereof has been upheld by the learned Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matters persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The petitions being meritless are dismissed and .