KARACHI, Sept 21: The Sindh High Court asked the National Accountability Bureau to compensate two accused to the tune of Rs500,000 each for their initial unlawful arrest and detention.
Disposing of petitions by Raja Zaraat and Mohammad Hanif of the Bawan Shah Group of Companies, a division bench consisting of Justices Mohammad Afzal Soomro and Rehmat Hussain Jafri held that they were arrested and detained much before a reference against them was filed.
The investigation officer stated no reason for remand to judicial custody or grounds for their alleged involvement. He did not collect sufficient material for seeking remand and a reference was filed only during the proceedings on their petitions.
The investigation also suffered from other irregularities, including the absence of the necessary entries in record and statements under Section 161 of the criminal procedure code. The actions and omissions were repugnant to Article 9 of the Constitution and the respondent bureau was liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved petitioners.
Upholding the arguments advanced by Advocates Raja Qureshi and Ali Ahmad Junejo, the petitioners’ counsel, the bench said that the administrative judge of the accountability courts acted in a mechanical manner in remanding the accused to judicial custody. There was no ground or material before him for allowing remand. The judge was directed to explain his conduct while the NAB chairman was asked to ensure that investigations were conducted and the accused were dealt with in accordance with the law. The IO was told to be careful in future.
Rejecting the plea of the petitioners for quashment of the NAB reference and proceedings against them, however, the bench ruled that the proceedings after the filing of the reference suffered from no infirmity. An accountability court duly took cognizance of the case and remand and detention under subsequent orders were lawful. The bench also declined them bail.
Remissions case
Another division bench consisting of Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Faisal Arab, meanwhile, issued notices in a petition seeking presidential remissions for convicts sentenced under Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997.
The convicts submitted through Advocate Abdul Razzak that Section 21 (F) disallowing presidential remissions under Article 45 was inserted in the ATA after their conviction and could not operate retrospectively to deprive them of the benefit of remissions. They also prayed that the jail terms awarded to them should run concurrently as the trial court had given no reason for their simultaneous operation.
