ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

PRESENT:-

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha

Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Const. Petition No. D- 6551 of 2020

Petitioner: Pervez Ahmed Malik through Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Advocate.

Respondents/State NAB through Mr. Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor, NAB.

Const. Petition No. D- 1199 of 2021

Petitioner: Manzoor Ali through Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate.

Respondents/State NAB through Mr. Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor, NAB.

Dates of hearing 22.05.2021 and 29.05.2021.

Date of order 06 -07-2021.

<><><><><>

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through the above petitions the petitioners Pervez Ahmed Malik and Manzoor Ali seek their post-arrest bail in NAB Reference No.03 of 2020 in respect of acts of corruption under S. 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) punishable under Section 10 of the Ordinance and Schedule thereto. Since both the petitions arise out of reference No: 03 of 2020, therefore, the same are being decided through this single order.

2. It is pointed out that earlier the petitioners and other accused nominated in the aforesaid reference approached this court for their pre-arrest and post-arrest bail through different petitions and after the hearing vide order dated: 08-09-2020 this court dismissed the petition for post-arrest bail of the accused Shah Rehman and allowed the petition for post-arrest bail of accused Muhammad Hussain. The petitions for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners namely Jamal ud din Mahar, Pervaiz Ahmed Malik, Manzoor Ali Dars and Muhammad Liaquat Ali Khan were dismissed. The petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Jam Abdul Razaq Dahar (Sub-registrar) was allowed. Some of the accused including the present petitioner Pervez Ahmed Malik approached the Honourable Supreme Court and challenged the above order of this court. The petitioner did not succeeded in obtaining pre-arrest bail hence the same was not pressed on 11-12-2020 and we have been informed that the other co-accused also withdrew their petitions for their pre-arrest bail.

3. The facts relevant to these petitions are that on receipt of complaint against Officers/Officials of Revenue Department Deh Jam Chakro, Taluka Mangopir, District West Karachi on 18.10.2016 regarding the insertion of fake and fabricated pre-dated entry No.36 dated 20.10.1933 in VF-VII-B Deh Jam Chakro, Tapo Mangopir Taluka Karachi, District Karachi for 40 acres of Government Land in the name of Allah Dino S/o Gul Muhammad Bakra and further alleged that 16 acres land out of 40-00 acres were transferred in the name of Shah Rehman S/o Dostay vide entry No.351 dated 12.08.1996 purporting the owner has gifted the land but the said gift deed was not in existence. In this regard, an inquiry was initiated which was subsequently converted to investigation vide letter No.NABK20180219113934/1/IW-2/CO-C/NAB(K)2019/155 dated 09.01.2019; that during the investigation it came to surface that the accused No.1, Shah Rehman is the fake owner of land measuring 16-00 acres entered at Entry No.351 dated 12.08.1996 of VF-VII-B Deh Jam Chakro Tapo Mangopir Taluka Karachi East; that investigation has revealed that the accused No.1 in connivance with the accused No.3, 4, and 5 managed insertion of Entry No.351 dated 12.08.1996 in his favor vide fake gift deed No.3944 dated 11.10.1991 page No.95 to 98 of volume No.3325 dated 24.10.1991; that investigation has found that the accused No.1 again in connivance with the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 got N.O.C for sale vide book No.0680 page No.AB067925 dated 21.11.2017. Then he sold 4-00 acres of Government Land to accused No.7 Muhammad Suleman vide Registered Deed No. RD/80/SR038 dated 11.04.2018 entered in VF-VII-B at entry No.58 dated 16.04.2008 and also sold 3-00 acres to accused No.8, Muhammad Liaquat Ali Khan and accused No.9, Ali ur Rehman vide Registered Deed No. RD/78/SRO/38 dated 11.04.2018 entered in VF-VII-B entry No.59 dated 16.04.2008; that the investigation has further disclosed that the accused No.2, Manzoor Ali Dars countersigned NOC for sale vide book No.0680 page No.AB067925 dated 21.11.2017 in connivance with accused No.3 and 4 without verifying the genuineness of entries. He extended undue and unjustified benefit to accused No.1 by issuing N.O.C for sale of Government Land and caused loss to Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 160 million; that investigation has found that the accused No.3 Pervaiz Ahmed Malik issued N.O.C for sale vide book No.0680 page No.AB067925 dated 12.11.2017 to accused No.1 in connivance with accused No.4 without ascertaining the genuineness of entries and extended undue benefit to accused No.1 by issuing N.O.C for the sale of Government Land and caused loss to Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 160 million; that the investigation has further found that the accused No.4 Jamal Din Mahar prepared N.O.C for sale vide book No.0680 page No.AB067925 dated 21.11.2017 without ascertaining the genuineness of relevant entry. He misused his authority and prepared N.O.C for the sale of Government Land and also extended undue benefit to the accused No.1 and caused loss to Government Exchequer; that the investigation has found that the accused No.5 Muhammad Hussain being the Tapedar, entered the entry No.351 dated 12.08.1996 in the VF-VII-B of Deh Jam Chakro, Tapo Mangopir Taluka Karachi West and also extended undue benefit to the accused No.1 and caused loss to National Exchequer; that the investigation has further found that the accused No.6/Abdul Razzaq Dahar being the Sub-Registrar, registered conveyance deed No.79 in favour of accused No.7 and conveyance deed No.80 in favour of accused No.8 and accused No.9 without verifying gift deed on basis of which entry No.351 dated 12.08.1996 was entered in the VF VII-B. The said gift deed has no existence at all; that the investigation has unearthed that the accused No.7/Muhammad Suleman illegally purchased 4-00 Acres of Government Land from accused No.1 in connivance with accused No.2, 3, and 4, and he in connivance with accused No.6 registered the said land through conveyance deed No.80 dated 15.12.2017; that the investigation has further unearthed that the accused No.8/ Muhammad Liaquat Ali Khan and accused No.9/Ali ur Rehman purchased 3-00 Acres (50% share each) Government Land out of 18 acres from accused No.1 through conveyance deed No.79 dated 15.12.2017; that in view of above, it has been established that all the accused in active connivance, collaboration and collusion with each other and by misusing their authority have caused loss to the National Exchequer to the tune of Rs.160 Million by arranging the fake entries of Government Land in favour of accused No.1. Thus, the accused persons have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section 9(a) NAO punishable under section 10 NAO and Schedule thereto, hence this reference has been filed on 12.02.2020 nominating nine {09} accused persons including the present petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner Parvaiz Ahmed Malik submitted that the petitioner being the Mukhtiarkar had issued a No Objection Certificate for sale and signed the same on the basis of entry No.351 in favour of Shah Rehman. He further submitted that the said entry in favour of the Shah Rehman has protection of law and is to be presumed as correct in view of S. 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. He further submitted that the petitioner is not a beneficiary of the scam; therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Manzoor Ali contended that petitioner being Assistant Commissioner had countersigned the no-objection certificate prepared by Jamal-ud-din and signed by him so also Parvaiz Ahmed Malik the then Mukhtiarkar and they were the proper persons to verify the record of rights available with them having the protection of S. 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967; that the petitioner is not beneficiary of the scam hence he is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned Special Prosecutor, NAB submits that No Objection Certificate was issued on the basis of fake entries, whereas the petitioners were duty-bound to verify from the record and if they had not issued and signed the certificate then the further transaction may not have occurred; that the petitioners themselves admitted that they had issued No Objection Certificate for sale, therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail as they are directly connected to the offence for which they have been charged.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Learned Special Prosecutor NAB and gone through the relevant record with their able assistance.

8. These petitions have been filed for grant of post-arrest bail and it is settled by know that while deciding the bail plea deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible and the same is to be decided on the basis of material available on record tentatively.

9. We have carefully examined the Form-VII which reflects that entry No.351 dated 12.08.1996 was made on the basis of gift deed No.3944 at Page Nos. 95 to 98 Volume No.3325 dated 24.10.1991. Whereas, the original entry Nos.350 and 351 dated 12.08.1996 shows that the land was transferred from the Government to Muhammad Maadod S/o. Muhammad Mehmood Ansari and Mst. Saira Begum wife of Nizamuddin Qureshi. We have also examined the gift deed registered on 24.10.1991 and its paragraph 3 concerns entry No.36 dated 20.10.1993. We have also examined the verification certificate having registration No.3944 at Pages 25 to 29 Volume 7 of the book No. I Addl. dated 24.10.1991, which conflicts with the entry made in Form-VII in favour of Shah Rehman which leads us to conclude that fraud and forgery was made in the revenue record. Both the petitioners were the custodian of the record of rights and it was their duty and obligation to see and check all the relevant entries prior to issuing any certificate. It is also observed that Muhammad Hussain the Tapedar of the beat has given true facts of these entries. It was alleged that co-accused Shah Rehman was not the original owner of the land and committed fraud and forgery in collusion with revenue officials and entry in favour of the Allah Dino is not in existence nor is the said Allah Dino on the surface.

10. The petitioners belong to the revenue department being posted as Mukhtiarkar and Assistant Commissioner and signed the no-objection certificate in favour of Shah Rehman knowing that Shah Rehman was not a real owner of the land and managed the Form VII showing entry in his favour; further more they failed to verify the original entry in favour of others regarding another land which was also available in their record. In view of the above we find that there is sufficient evidence with the prosecution against the petitioners which connect the petitioners with the offence with which they are charged. On tentative assessment of the material available on the record we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail at this stage and their petitions are dismissed. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of this case within a period of six months from the date of this order. A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned accountability court for information and compliance.

11. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the right of either party at trial.

12. The above petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE