KARACHI: SC transfers cases to accountability court
KARACHI, May 21: The Karachi Registry of the Supreme Court upheld on Tuesday the judgment of the Sindh High Court on two identical appeals and transferred the cases from the special judge Anti-corruption Court, Hyderabad and Sukkur, to the accountability court, Hyderabad.
A three-member bench, comprising Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Syed Deedar Husain Shah and Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, passed the order after hearing arguments on two appeals challenging the Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad and Sukkur circuit bench’s orders in which these cases were transferred from the Anti-corruption Court to the accountability court on an application of the chairman of the National Accountability Bureau.
Petitioners Sardar Ahmed Siyal, Anwaruddin Memon and two others made the NAB chairman the respondent.
The Supreme Court ordered that the two identical appeals seeking leave to appeal should be dispose of, which were directed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court on September 10, 2001 and December 24, 2001 by Hyderabad and Sukkur circuit bench, respectively.
The court also ordered that cases pending before the Anti-corruption Court, Hyderabad and Sukkur, be transferred to the Accountability Court, Hyderabad, on the application of section 16-A (a) of the NAB Ordinance.
The court observed that Deputy Prosecutor-General of NAB submitted an application duly signed by the NAB chairman requesting for transfer of the cases pending against the petitioners to the accountability court as they were scheduled offences.
The special judge Hyderabad passed an order directing the office to send record and proceedings of the cases to the accountability court, as prayed, court held.
Counsel for petitioner Abdul Raheem Qazi submitted that the provisions of CCP were applicable to the proceedings before the accountability court, by virtue of section 17 of the NAB Ordinance.
The main thrust of the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner was that the trial courts passed the impugned orders without issuance of any show-cause notices to the petitioners-accused in the cases pending before the said courts, held the court.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, said: “We have examined the provisions of clause (a) of section 16-A of the Ordinance which clearly tend to show that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.
“The NAB chairman may apply to any court of law or tribunal for transfer of the case involving a scheduled offence pending before such court or tribunal.”
The court observed that both appeals were without any substance.—PPI
