GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad Ss. 25(a) & 25(b)---Voluntary Return ("VR")---Plea Bargain ("PB")---Distinction---"VR" envisages full deposit and "PB" a commitment to pay---"VR" is linked with the condition of full deposit whereas "PB" becomes operative if the accused "agrees to return" to the NAB the amount determined by the Chairman, NAB, and the Court approves such agreement. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 54 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad S. 25(a)---Government officer---Owning assets beyond known sources---Voluntary Return ("VR")---Scope---Amount of "VR" approved by Director General, NAB paid by accused in installments---Subsequent notice based on order of Accountability Court asking accused to pay additional amount after approval of VR---Legality---Accountability Court, jurisdiction of---Petitioner, while in custody, made an offer to the Director General, NAB for voluntary return ("VR") and showed his willingness to return all the assets gained/acquired by him which were the subject matter of the inquiry against him---Respondents determined the liability of the petitioner as Rs.210.311 million and as such the petitioner, on the direction of the respondents, filed an affidavit for the agreement under section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ("NAO") whereby the petitioner undertook to pay the said liability as per the schedule mentioned/agreed therein---Said offer of the petitioner was approved by the competent authority i.e. Director General, NAB---Petitioner started making the agreed payments and was released from the custody of the respondent/NAB---Later, the respondents, through a Final Notice demanded an (additional) amount of Rs. 140.62 million in addition to the earlier agreed amount of Rs.210.311 million from the petitioner on the ground that the earlier liability was re-determined/re-evaluated/re-assessed in compliance of an order of the Administrative Judge, Accountability Court, who had observed that the initial assessment was not carried out properly as the value of assets was calculated merely on the basis of the value of the property as mentioned on the sale deeds and Investigating Officer (I.O.) was advised to re-value the assets of the petitioner on the basis of market value from some reliable sources---Questions that arise are whether the Accountability Court has the jurisdiction to direct the I.O. to calculate or re-assess/re-value the VR liability, in certain manners, which has already been approved by the Competent Authority and whether NAB authority is bound by such order and can unilaterally enhance the value/amount of the VR while ignoring the voluntary offer made by the petitioner---Held, that Accountability Court has got no role, power, or authority to direct or supervise the VR proceedings---It is only the Chairman NAB (or his delegate under section 34-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, if any) who is competent to accept the offer of VR and determine or fix the liability of an accused thereunder---In the present case the Accountability Court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it; hence, its order directing the I.O. to re-asses or re-value the VR liability of the petitioner (which had already been approved by the competent authority) is nothing but nullity in the eyes of law being coram-non-judice---However, this does not, in any manner, mean that the Chairman NAB had no authority to re-value or re-assess the liability of an accused already approved by him under the VR or to again initiate an inquiry for the same allegations---Admittedly, the petitioner has made the full payment of Rs.210.311064 million under the VR as determined by the Director General NAB, therefore, the petitioner is held to be discharged of his liability under the subject inquiry by the NAB---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 54 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad Void order--- When the basic order is void, the superstructure built thereon is also void and it would fall to the ground automatically. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 54 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad S. 25(a)---Voluntary Return ("VR")---Scope---"VR" under the law is a one-time facility of depositing the determined amount and not a long-term repayment arrangement---Even if the accused is allowed to pay the amount in installments, VR will only be effective once the determined amount is deposited in full. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 54 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad Language of the statute---In constructing and interpreting statutes, the Court has first to look at the language of the law and interpret the same in accordance with the ordinary meaning and usage of the words---Context in which the said words have been used by the legislature as is evident from the language of the provisions itself can also be considered without adding to or subtracting anything from the same---In case of lack of clarity, as a second step, the Court may look for the intent and purpose of the lawmaker in using a particular language and words as is evident from the language of the statute.

GHULAM MUSTAFA LUND vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman, Islamabad Ss — 2024 PLD 54 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD