MUMTAZ ALI vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 749 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUMTAZ ALI VS State Ss. 33-E & 9---application for return of surety, dismissal of---accused was convicted by NaB Court and was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.61,79,238/-.---Said order further stipulated that the fine shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue in accordance with Section 33-E of the National accountability Ordinance, 1999---High Court maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence from ten years to the period already served and with this modification, the appeal was disposed of, but for all practical purposes, the liability of the payment of the fine remained intact and unremitting---During the pendency of trial before the NaB Court, the appellant applied for bail before the Supreme Court which was allowed subject to the deposit of the entire amount of his liability---Counsel for the accused, on instructions, conveyed that the accused voluntarily proposed and was ready to deposit the entire amount of his liability and not as surety---On this offer, the prosecution extended its no objection and post-arrest bail was granted subject to depositing the entire liability---Consequently the applicant (son of the accused) deposited sixteen original Defence Savings Certificates with the assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court to cover up and secure the fine amount commensurate to the bail order---Nothing in the bail order of the Supreme Court reflected that the accused was called upon to furnish the surety, but he showed willingness to deposit the entire amount of liability---accused tendered the amount in lieu of availing the discretionary relief of bail and the same liability/fine was fixed against him in the NaB Court affirmed by the High Court---Had the accused been acquitted by the High Court in appeal, he could have asked for the refund or release of the full amount deposited by him---However, the High Court maintained the conviction to the extent of the already undergone sentence without upsetting or affecting the quantum of the fine imposed upon the appellant by the NaB Court---There was no logical justification to call upon the NaB to start from scratch and initiate proceedings under Section 33-E of the National accountability Ordinance, 1999, after returning the amount to the accused---allowing it would amount to defrauding and deceiving the Court to first secure bail through misrepresentation and, after finalization and affirmation of the judgment of the conviction by the Trial Court and appellate Court, implore the release of the amount deposited---In such circumstances the application for the withdrawal of surety was misconceived and injudicious---application was dismissed with the directions that office shall hand over the Defence Savings Certificates to the NaB after fulfilling all requisite formalities for the encashment of liability determined by the NaB Court and affirmed by the High Court to attain finality in the matter; however, on encashment of the Defence Savings Certificates by the NaB, if any excess amount was found over and above the quantum of liability on account of any accumulated profit/increase, the same shall be refunded back to the applicant after adjusting the liability/fine.

MUMTAZ ALI vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 749 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR