Pleas moved under 516-A CrPC must be decided swiftly with fair hearing: SC
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar ruled that in car superdari case.
The petitioner (Ahsan Ali Dawach) was taken into custody by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for investigation of Rs3.2 billion pension funds scam, involving District Accounts Officials, Hyderabad, and others. At the time of arrest, a vehicle, Honda Vezel was also seized from the petitioner's custody.
A reference under Section 18(g) and 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 was filed against the petitioner and other persons.
During investigation, DG NAB Sindh passed an order on 01.02.2022 under Section 12 of the NAO 1999 for freezing of movable and immovable properties of accused persons which was confirmed by the trial court on 14.02.2023.
The petitioner, on 31.01.2023, filed an application under Section 516- A of the CrPC, 1898 in the trial court for release of the vehicle on superdari subject to furnishing of solvent surety, which was dismissed on 20.05.2023. The petitioner assailed the order of the trial court before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed, thus, the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The judgment, authored by Justice Mazhar, said that the application moved under Section 516-A CrPC must be decided expeditiously after providing a fair chance to contest the legality of the seizure and the order must be based on cogent reasons as to why the vehicle should be released or why it should not be released, rather than deferring the application for an indefinite period or disposing it of in a slipshod or cursory manner.
It noted that according to the command and mandate of Article 23 of the Constitution, every citizen has a right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. All at once, it is engrained and embedded under Article 24 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with the law with certain exceptions.
The judgment said that while exercising discretionary powers for allowing or disallowing an application for interim custody, the Court must also consider the constitutional provisions to ensure that withholding custody without any rhyme or reason does not flout or violate or infringe upon fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution.
It also said that the Court must aptly uphold a good sense of implementation of law, but on the other hand, it is obligated to shield and safeguard the rights of individuals in order to ensure justice without protracted detentions or delays of such interlocutory applications, as long as it does not compromise the legal proceedings.
The Court clarified that the scheme of law permitting the interim custody of vehicle on superdari neither amounts to prejudice the trial, nor gives a clean chit to the accused, nor does it relieve or exempt the owner/recipient of custody from pending legal proceedings.
However, the duration of the interim custody may continue subject to the bond and surety till the final fate of the case, till then, the person allowed interim custody is duty-bound under the law to attend, participate, and produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC rules delay in appeals not justified by filing in wrong forum
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that delays in appeals against convictions can only be excused when a sufficient and reasonable cause is demonstrated. Relying on the incorrect forum does not meet the legal requirements for delay condonation. The ruling came during the hearing of a case where a convict had filed an appeal against his conviction in the district court, ignoring the requirement that such appeals, under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (amended in 2015), should be filed directly with the LHC. The key legal question before the court was whether the appellant's decision to file his appeal in the wrong forum, which led to its dismissal, could justify the filing of a fresh appeal at the LHC beyond the statutory limitation period. The convict, Zainul Abideen, was sentenced on May 15, 2017, by a magistrate in Lahore. However, instead of approaching the LHC, as mandated by Section 45-A of the Act of 2011, he filed an appeal in the Sessions Court on May 22, 2017. This forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the said Act. The appeal remained pending in the Sessions Court for around seven months and was ultimately dismissed on December 21, 2017, for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fresh appeal at the LHC on January 19, 2018, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to condone the delay in filing his appeal. Justice Abher Gul Khan, who was hearing the case, noted that the appellant had failed to challenge or seek to set aside the judgment passed by the additional sessions judge, which dismissed his earlier appeal. This lack of challenge left the earlier dismissal order intact, which could have implications for the present appeal's maintainability. The judge further observed that during the seven-month period when the appeal was pending in the sessions court, neither the appellant nor his legal counsel addressed the critical legal issue of the forum's lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they passively awaited a favourable outcome. It was only after the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that they chose to file the current appeal before the LHC. Justice Khan emphasised that while the court often exercises discretion in condoning delays, it is not automatic. The court would not routinely condone delays unless the appellant could provide valid and convincing reasons. The judge highlighted that such condonation cannot be treated as a mechanical rule to apply in every case. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Punjab Food Authority, alleging offenses under Sections 22-A and 24-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The judicial magistrate took cognisance of the case and summoned the appellant. After trial, the magistrate found Zain guilty of an offence under Section 24-A of the Act, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs100,000. Since the sentence was less than one year, the magistrate exercised discretion under Section 382-A of the CrPC and postponed the execution of the sentence to allow the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal, contingent upon him furnishing bail bonds of Rs200,000.
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PTI's parliamentary core falls to ECP's guillotine
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday delivered a major blow to PTI's parliamentary muscle, disqualifying several of the party's top opposition leaders on the day it marked the second anniversary of Imran Khan's arrest with countrywide protests. The axe fell hard, sweeping away the party's parliamentary leadership in both houses, following a recent ruling by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Faisalabad. The court handed down prison sentences of up to 10 years to over 100 PTI leaders and workers, including key opposition figures, for their alleged involvement in the May 9 riots, triggered by Khan's dramatic arrest in 2023. Those de-notified include Senate Opposition Leader Shibli Faraz, National Assembly Opposition Leader Omar Ayub Khan, Sunni Ittehad Council chief Sahibzada Hamid Raza, and PTI Parliamentary Leader Zartaj Gul. Three members of the Punjab Assembly – Muhammad Ansar Iqbal, Junaid Afzal Sahi, and Rai Muhammad Murtaza Iqbal – have also been disqualified. Acting on the convictions, the ECP issued a formal notification disqualifying nine lawmakers under Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution, which bars any person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to two or more years in prison from holding elected office. "A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) if he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release," reads Article 63(1)(h). The ECP stated the lawmakers, having been convicted and sentenced, now "stand disqualified under Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution," adding that, "Consequently, their seats have become vacant". All nine had been found guilty by the ATC for their alleged roles in the May 9 unrest, when PTI supporters, incensed by Khan's arrest outside the Islamabad High Court, stormed and vandalised military installations, including martyrs' memorials. The PTI had earlier declared that any attempt to arrest Khan would cross its "red line". In the aftermath, the military declared May 9 as a "Black Day", calling it a "dark chapter" in national history. However, the PTI has consistently claimed the events were a "false-flag operation" orchestrated by the establishment to frame the party and crush dissent. The ECP's move landed just as PTI was reigniting street agitation to mark the anniversary of Khan's arrest. With the latest disqualifications, the PML-N-led ruling alliance now sits virtually unchallenged in parliament, deepening the political vacuum and tightening the noose around what remains of the opposition. Reacting to ECP's decision, Ayub stated on X that he was grateful for the opportunity to serve as the leader of the opposition in NA. Expressing that his leader, Imran Khan and his colleagues had nominated him, he said that he has been de-seated as MNA NA18 Haripur and opposition leader "due to a bogus verdict by the ATC Faisalabad Judge Sheikh Javed Iqbal, who has wrongly convicted me for 10 years". Ayub further stated that the court "relied on the evidence of prosecution witnesses who were rejected by the ATC Sargodha Judge last year, and we were acquitted". He said the verdict proves "there is no rule of law in Pakistan". "This hybrid regime and its backers were perturbed by my stand as Leader of the Opposition for stating the truth and holding them accountable," he asserted. He vowed to challenge both the ATC verdict and the ECP disqualification in court, expressing hope that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi would take note of what he called the "deplorable state of affairs in Pakistan's judiciary." Ayub ended on a defiant note, saying, "I was, I am, and I will be a worker of PM Imran Khan and PTI".
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Penalty of dismissal from service can't be awarded sans probe: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry, or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant as it amounts to violation of principles of Natural Justice. It also said that in cases involving public funds extra caution and due care is required to be observed to prove the charge of embezzlement or misappropriation, whereas, proper inquiry needs to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner to ensure that the public funds, so misappropriated, could be retrieved and the civil servant involved in such offence, shall be punished accordingly. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mussarat Hilali, observed that while hearing an appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. Brief facts of the case are that District Coordination Officer/ District Collector Mianwali proceeded against the petitioner (Malik Muhammad Ramzan) and awarded punishment of dismissal from service by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charges of fraud and embezzlement of funds committed by the petitioner by increasing the amounts of cheques through forgery after getting them signed from the authorities. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed departmental appeal before departmental authorities, which was rejected on 11.11.2016. The petitioner then filed revision petition, which was also dismissed on 02.03.2018. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. However, such appeal was also dismissed on 24.01.2022. Thus, this petition was filed before the apex court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that he was not provided with an opportunity of being heard. 'I was never served with any show-cause notice nor any regular inquiry was conducted while imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service,' he asserted. Conversely, the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that the petitioner was duly served with Show-Cause Notice(s) and was given an opportunity of being heard. The court after perusal of facts and examination of record, found that respondents failed to place on record any material or evidence to show that petitioner was ever served with the Show-Cause Notice(s) or was associated by the IO for the purposes of conducting regular inquiry. It further noted that major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the allegations of embezzlement/ misappropriation of funds; however, without confronting the petitioner with any material or evidence, which may support such allegations. It set aside the Tribunal's verdict, and the respondents were directed to re-instate the petitioner into service. However, it remanded the matter to the departmental authority to conduct de novo inquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner while providing him sufficient opportunity of being heard in terms of Sections 9 and 10 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
