| Case ID |
e150223d-f475-482d-a1e5-a8b92e1ac510 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.P. No. D-4519 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 08, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court dismissed the constitutional petition filed by the petitioners, who were accused in Reference No. 16/2018 pending before the Accountability Court IV, Sindh at Karachi. The petitioners sought quashing of the reference on the grounds that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against them. The court found that the case against the petitioners was nearing completion and that interference at this stage could prejudice the prosecution's case. The court determined that the allegations against the petitioners required thorough examination of evidence, which was not permissible under constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court clarified that the penalty imposed under a show cause notice did not equate to trial proceedings and did not invoke the principle of double jeopardy. The court concluded that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners under the National Accountability Ordinance was valid and dismissed the petition accordingly. |
| Summary |
In the case of C.P. No. D-4519 of 2019, the Sindh High Court addressed the constitutional petition filed by the petitioners, accused in a corruption reference related to the illegal sale of aviation fuel. The petitioners argued that the NAB lacked jurisdiction and that the ongoing proceedings violated the principle of double jeopardy due to a prior penalty imposed on their company by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority. The court, however, noted that the trial was at an advanced stage, and the allegations involved complex interrelations among multiple accused parties, making it inappropriate for the court to intervene at this juncture. The ruling emphasized that the nature of the proceedings under the show cause notice and the trial were fundamentally different. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, reinforcing the legal standards governing accountability and the responsibilities of regulatory bodies. This case highlights significant issues regarding jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and the procedural intricacies of corruption cases in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Shell Pakistan Ltd.,
Messrs Aerolube Private Ltd.
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO,
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI
|
| Lawyers |
Rasheed A. Rizvi,
Tahmasp R. Rizvi,
Shoaib Khatian,
Shahbaz Sahotra,
Mukesh Kumar Khatri
|
| Petitioners |
anothers,
ABBAS HAIDER NAQVI
|
| Respondents |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN,
others
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 1370,
2022 PCRLJ 941
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 1978 SC 121,
PLD 2008 SC 166,
2008 SCMR 1118,
PLD 2016 SC 276,
PLD 1999 SC 937,
PLD 2001 SC 7,
Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v. Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Director NBFCs Department Islamabad 2014 SCMR 1376,
Adam v. Collector of Customs, Karachi PLD 1969 SC 446
|
| Laws Involved |
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
9(a)(vi),
265-K,
403,
13,
199
|