In the High Court of Sindh, Karachi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI C.P.No.D-2186 of 2021 Date Order with signature of Judge(s) Before: Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam --------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner : Zabardast Khan Mahar, through Mr. Waqar Alam Abbasi, Advocate. Versus Respondent No.1 : The Federation of Pakistan Respondent No.2 : The Director General NAB, Sukkur. Date of Hearing : 05.04.2021 O R D E R NAZAR AKBAR, J:- The Petitioner has sought the following relief(s) through this petition: i. To reduce the surety amount to a reasonable and just sum to enunciate that the grant of bail is a form of relief and not a method of punishment as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well. ii Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and pr0per may kindly be granted. 2. On query from the Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner was unable to satisfy the Court that how an independent/fresh constitution petition can be filed when the Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by this very Bench in C.P No.D-1078/2020, whereby the said petition was disposed of. In the first place if the Petitioner was aggrieved by any observation, he should have filed petition for leave to appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Additionally, this petition is not maintainable also for the following reasons: (i) This petition has not been signed and supported with the affidavit of the Petitioner. [2] (ii) Office objection No.7 that affidavit of Petitioner in support of petition is to be filed/sworn has not been properly answered by the Petitioner. The counsel has written “Vakalatnama filed” in reply to objection No.7 Vakalatnama cannot be treated as an affidavit of Petitioner in support of petition sworn by the Petitioner. (iii) Affidavit of facts about the financial status of the Petitioner that whether he is capable of submitting the surety or not, cannot be sworn by lawyer engaged by him after obtaining the consent order for submitting the pay order equivalent to the alleged misappropriation on his earlier petition No.D- 1078/2020. (iv) The Lawyers are not supposed to replace their client for any substantial relief which their client want on the basis of facts from the court. A distinction has to be drawn between the client/litigant and his/her lawyer. Lawyers cannot swear affidavit of facts relating to the circumstances of their client in which need for an order from the court of Law was felt by their client. The facts and circumstances can only be in the personal knowledge of their client and therefore, when neither the petition nor the affidavit in support of petition is signed by the petitioner, it is difficult to believe that the petition has been filed under the instructions given by the petitioner. It is the litigant who has to swear an affidavit that the accompanying petition has been filed by his counsel under his instruction. It cannot be vice versa. If this practice is allowed, we are afraid in future hundreds of litigants would be in serious problems at the hands of lawyers. Is there any dearth of complaint by the clients against their lawyers? One day even plaints in suits and other miscellaneous petitions can be sworn and filed by the lawyers on the strength of having a power (Vakalatnama) even from a pardanashin woman or housewife and/or fake Vakalatnama. 3. In view of the fact that this petition was not even signed and supported with the affidavit of the Petitioner, the office has raised objection No.7 and it was not removed by the counsel for the [3] petitioner. But we did not find on the order sheet note from the office that objection No.7 is also for orders by Court. The Office is directed that in future OFFICE OBJECTION ON MAINTAINABILITY should be raised on all such petitions/suits/applications including even application for urgent hearing, if the same are not supported by an affidavit of the party on whose behalf such an application has been filed. 4. Be that as it may, even on merit the Petitioner has no case. The Petitioner in para-8 has attempted to give an impression that this Bench has deviated from the pleadings in passing even favourable order of bail to him. Para-8 of the petition is reproduced below:- 8. That the petitioner in his bail petition No.D- 1078/2020 has made no mention or shown any intention that he is willing to submit the total alleged amount as shown upon him by the NAB authority as surety, so this observation and direction made by the Hon'ble DB of the Sindh High Court at Sukkur is in error and against the notion that the grant of bail is to be seen as a relief as this order reflects that it was passed as a form of punishment and the petitioner has been convicted even before his trial has reached completion, as the same is pending adjudication in front of the Accountability Court at Sukkur. 5. Are we supposed to be misguided by suppression of facts that learned counsel of the Petitioner himself has made an offer on behalf of the Petitioner like other Petitioners and the offer of the Petitioner was reproduced in the order itself. Relevant portion of the order dated 09.3.2020 is reproduced below:- 3. ………………….Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the matter at some length, submitted that though the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the reference are false but inspite of that they are ready to furnish security/surety of equivalent to the extent of loss allegedly caused to Government exchequer by each of the petitioner individually as allegedly attributed to each one of them within a reasonable time. [4] 6. If the above statement about the consent/offer of the Petitioner in the said order is contrary to the instructions of the Petitioner, then it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to first file complaint against Advocate, who represented the Petitioner and on whose request the orders were passed on the earlier petitions. 7. The very fact that the Petitioner even in this incompetent petition has not disputed the fact that his counsel was fully authorized to represent him in the said petition and make such submissions, no exception can be taken in the case of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that from day one when this Bench was constituted at Sukkur, every lawyer appearing in the petitions against the NAB for the purpose of bail have made the similar offer. It may further be mentioned here that the unreported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted by us in the bail granting orders were provided to us by the counsel representing the Petitioners. Several petitioners have filed even urgent applications to place their petitions before this Bench for disposal of their bail plea on deposit of Pay Orders equivalent of the alleged amount of corruption or loss allegedly caused by them on the basis of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pending the trial before NAB Court, Sukkur. We have disposed of hundreds of petitions as shown in the table below:- Liability Case No Petitioner Name Amount in PKR Nazar Muhammad Soomro 1,499,861.00 Imtiaz Ali Odho 1,046,108.00 Tarique Ahmed Bughio 18,605,588.00 Bilal Khan Dhamrah 1,713,538.00 Inayatuallah Junejo 1,912,208.00 Mohammad Ali Marfani 6,552,458.00 Hazoor Dino Panhwar 9,669,207.00 Sarwar Hussain Ghumro 149,139,353.00 Noor Ahmed Shaikh 49,160,553.00 Zaheer ud din 2,027,412.00 Zulfiqar Ali Marfani 1,688,205.00 Mohammad Nihal Shaikh 2,011,936.00 Naseer Shah 2,462,118.00 [5] Arasullah Soomro 1,698,046.00 Irfan Ahmed Khan 6,099,229.00 Abid Hussain Shah 1,075,539.00 Abid Hussain Abro 3,968,048.00 Nighat Hussain 1,294,893.00 C.Ps No. D-3067, Mohammad Aslam Dayo 4,406,433.00 4423 of 2016, 1593, Firdoos Ahmed Mangi 1,701,571.00 1203, 492, 423, 441, Naeem Ahmed Mangi 6,467,650.00 443, 460, 472, 473, Aamir Ali Soomro 8,714,416.00 485, 493, 497, 516, Abdul Hafeez Lolai 1,018,373.00 517, 520, 521, 522, Shakeel Ahmed Mangi 10,126,408.00 527, 528, 541, 565, Fida Hussain Mangi 7,560,142.00 573, 583, 624, 625, Imtiaz Ali Mangi 13,576,652.00 626, 627, 644, 665, Imdad Hussain Abro 1,365,009.00 728, 770, 923 of Zaheer Ahmed Unar 2,396,611.00 2018, 314 of 2019, 46 & 575 of 2020 Abdul Razzaque Abro 1,931,176.00 Mohammad Paryal Solangi 929,125.00 Aamir Ali Mangi 5,434,858.00 Manwar Ali Meerani s/o Mohb 2,213,170.00 Ali Akhlaque Ahmed Joyo 1,285,776.00 Sikandar Ali Meerani 1,567,611.00 Ubaidullah 1,070,501.00 Aijaz Ali Rahoojo 2,584,473.00 Asif Ali Siyal 1,295,664.00 Abdullah 1,829,622.00 Habib Ur Rehman Mangi 8,875,269.00 Shakeel Ahmed Kalar 1,699,445.00 Deedar Ali Lolai 3,386,106.00 Lashkar Khan Brohi 1,087,042.00 Munawar Ali Meerani s/o 3,226,236.00 Allah Juriyo Mushtaque Mangi 30,563,436.00 Ghulam Ali Gopang 38,360,313.00 Abdul Jabbar Jamali 1,033,409.00 Kamran Ali 2,659,966.00 Zakaullah Shah 3,772,729.00 Rafique Ahmed Mangi 4,277,297.00 Mushtaque Ahmed Channa 2,650,872.00 Shahid Bashir 20,824,068.00 4447/2016 Ashiq Ali Lakhan 4,511,536.00 4448/2016 Ahmed Junaid Memon 4,511,536.00 5098/2016 Saeed Ahmed 4,511,536.00 454/2019 Javed Ahmed Dasti 11,053,263.00 503/2019 Abdul Jabbar 225,577.00 Muhammad Hassan 225,577.00 513/2019 Syed Arshad Wahab 4,511,536.00 78/2020 Shabbir Ahmed 11,053,263.00 156/2020 Mohan Lal 40,624,530.00 157/2020 Muhammad Ibrahim Theheem 23,934,849.00 440/2020 Sikandar Ali Mahar 338,597,417.00 1023/2020 Haresh Mal Santwani 26,014,085.00 1078/2020 Zabardast Khan Mahar 338,597,417.00 3542/2016 Mukhtiar Ahmed 11,149,589.00 Habibullah Shah 6,979,983.00 3666/2016 Abdul Majeed 17,621,405.00 3618/2016 Ghulam Mujtaba 5,581,539.00 3743/2016 Bashir Ahmed Magsi 5,892,118.00 1502/2017 Abdul Hameed Pathan 46468363 (Administrator) 1537/2017 Shahzado Khokhar ( Engineer) 15428671 2392/2017 Rameez Thaheem (Accounts 17959216 Officer) Javed Ahmed Khuhro 13080474 [6] (Accounts Officer) 299/2017 Khadim Hussain (Govt.