| Case ID |
0c200f79-f1b8-47ff-9521-7279d752b93a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
DB-1555 of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
May 13, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the constitutional petition filed by ABID SAEED on 13th May 2015. The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the available legal remedies under the relevant procedural statutes before approaching the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner was declared a fugitive from the law after repeatedly evading court appearances, which further disqualified him from being granted bail. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of innocence and had not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the intervention of the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without altering the existing charges pending in the trial court. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of **DB-1555 of 2015**, heard by the **Sindh High Court** on May 13, 2015, petitioner **ABID SAEED** sought relief against the **Director-General of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)**. The case centered around allegations of fraud, cheating, and misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.1,122,000 by the petitioner and co-accused **Muzafar Ayaz Abid** through a fake account at **National Bank of Pakistan, Massan Road Branch, Karachi**. The petitioner requested bail and the quashing of ongoing proceedings under **Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan**.
The court reviewed several legal provisions, including **Art. 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan** and sections **24(b)**, **9(a)(xi)**, **16(c)**, and **31-A** of the **National Accountability Ordinance, 1999**. Precedents such as **Shoukat Khan v. Assistant Political Agent** and **Chief Administrator of Aukaf v. Muhammad Ramzan** were cited to establish the necessity of exhausting procedural remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
Evidence presented included detailed accounts of the fraudulent activities, including unauthorized deposits and withdrawals from the disputed account, and testimonies from key witnesses like **Mahmood Alam** and **Manzoor Hussain Bhutto**. The prosecution underscored the petitioner's pivotal role in orchestrating the financial malfeasance, resulting in significant losses to the national exchequer.
The defense, represented by **Pervaiz Iqbal Butt**, argued the petitioner's innocence, lack of evidence connecting him directly to the crimes, and questioned the procedural integrity of the NAB's actions. However, the court found the petitioner's failure to appear in trial proceedings and his status as a proclaimed offender weakened his case for bail, aligning with rulings from cases like **Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan** and **Manzar Qayyum v. The State**.
Ultimately, the Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the importance of adhering to procedural statutes and the limited scope of constitutional jurisdiction in the presence of available legal remedies. This case underscores the judiciary's stance on preventing bypassing established legal channels and the severe repercussions of evading court mandates. The decision also highlights the rigorous standards courts apply when assessing bail petitions, especially involving high-stakes financial crimes and allegations of corruption.
For legal professionals and scholars, **DB-1555 of 2015** serves as a critical reference point for understanding the interplay between constitutional provisions and procedural laws in Pakistan's legal landscape. It emphasizes the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that individuals cannot circumvent legal processes through constitutional appeals alone. The case also reflects the ongoing efforts to combat corruption and financial crimes within the country's banking institutions, reinforcing the accountability mechanisms established by the **National Accountability Ordinance, 1999**.
Moreover, the case sheds light on the procedural expectations for petitioners, illustrating the necessity of engaging with lower courts before escalating matters to higher judicial authorities. It also demonstrates the court's meticulous approach in evaluating evidence, witness testimonies, and legal arguments to arrive at a just decision. The dismissal of the petition reinforces the principle that legal remedies must be fully utilized before seeking constitutional intervention, maintaining the balance between different branches of the judiciary and ensuring efficient case management.
In summary, **DB-1555 of 2015** is a significant case that delineates the boundaries of constitutional petitions, the prerequisites for invoking High Court jurisdiction, and the stringent criteria for bail in cases involving financial misconduct. It serves as an essential guide for legal practitioners navigating similar cases, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the robust evaluation of evidentiary support in the pursuit of justice. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
National Accountability Bureau,
National Bank of Pakistan,
Deutsche Bank Karachi
|
| Judges |
AHMED ALI M. SHEIKH,
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI
|
| Lawyers |
Pervaiz Iqbal Butt,
Noor Muhammad Dayo,
Obaidullah Abro
|
| Petitioners |
ABID SAEED
|
| Respondents |
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2975,
2015 PCRLJ 1732
|
| Other Citations |
Shoukat Khan v. Assistant Political Agent, Landhi Kotal, Khyber Agency and others PLD 2002 SC 526,
Chief Administrator of Aukaf v. Muhammad Ramzan PLD 1991 SC 102,
Messrs A.H. Pesticides (Pvt.) Ltd and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 Kar. 620,
Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 402,
Manzar Qayyum v. The State and others PLD 2006 SC 343,
Muhammad Sabir Roshan v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1195,
Ghulam Haider Jamro and another v. Chairman, NAB 2007 YLR 541
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
|
| Sections |
Art. 199,
Section 24(b),
Section 9(a)(xi),
Section 16(c),
Section 31-A
|