LAHORE, Jan 26: Ehtesab bench of the Lahore High Court has observed that the National Accountability Bureau is bound to lose its credibility as an institution designated to eliminate corruption if its prosecutors kept on delaying early disposal of cases.

Comprising Justice Ali Nawaz Chauhan and Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the LHC bench held that years after years lapsed in disposal of corruption cases and this conduct of the NAB’s prosecution wing was in flagrant violation of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which stipulated a period of 30 days for completion of trial in a reference.

The court consequently allowed Sardar Mohammad Naseem, an official of the defunct deputy commissioner office, Lahore, to be released on bail because he was kept behind bars since January 2001 without substantial proceedings against him. Naseem was actually arrested on corruption charges in 1995 and was released on bail. He was again arrested when a reference against him was filed by the NAB five years ago and the accountability court had been declining his bail plea since then.

Sardar Naseem, who moved the LHC in a petition through advocate A K Dogar, submitted that proceedings in the reference against him were adjourned for no less than 222 times in five years and 141 of the adjournments were sought by the prosecution. His counsel submitted that this was a classic case of delay and this substantiated the fact that the prosecution was still looking for some incriminating evidence to get the petitioner convicted and in the absence of such an evidence, they were prolonging his incarceration as a discrimination in violation of the law.

Referring to the prosecution’s plea that the offence of Sardar Naseem was serious in nature, the court held that this did not mean that the accused be given an unending trial. The court observed that the objective of criminal justice was to confront a criminal as early as possible. For this due process was to be followed with a view of justice and not to punish an accused before the verdict of a court by way of a long incarceration. Such a case would fall within the mischief of justice delayed is justice denied, the court held.

The court said a question was usually asked in case of acquittal as to who would be responsible for the agony and hardship the accused had undergone during the prolonged trial. It was certainly a pertinent question. The judgment said the accused was not only entitled to a fair trial but a humane treatment which was possible only if investigation was honest and trial was proper and expeditious.

The court observed that the state was obliged to ensure that courts were equipped with people who were well versant with handling proper trial. Likewise, prosecutors were required to have skills essential for establishing a foolproof case before a court of law.

The LHC bench sent a copy of the order to the NAB chairman for necessary action and the consideration if the institution’s prosecution was being respectful to the important provision of the law on time-frame for decisions.

The authorities concerned, the court said, were obliged to take measures so that the intention and spirit of the law was respected in all fairness.