PHC re-issues notice to federal govt, AC judges
NAB petition
By our correspondents
August 07, 2015
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday re-issued notice to the federal government and judges of the accountability court (AC) in a writ petition against the order of accountability court restraining the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from voluntary return deal with the accused persons in corruption cases. A two-member bench comprising Justice Qaiser Rashid Khan and Justice Roohul Amin Khan also extended the stay order regarding suspension of the accountability court’s order.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had challenged the order of accountability court restraining the chairman NAB from voluntary return deal with the accused persons in corruption cases after their arrest.
The NAB claimed in the petition that the accountability courts judges had declared that the inquiry against a public office holder in corruption cases after arrest would be converted into investigation. The NAB further added that the court had declared that after the arrest and obtaining physical remand from the court, the NAB could not opt for voluntary return deal with the accused public office holder and could only accept the plea bargain.
The order passed by the Accountability Court No.1 headed by Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and two more judges comprising of Muhammad Asim Imam and Tariq Yousafzai states that, “Any accused who is holder of public office involved in corruption and corrupt practices is arrested and brought before the accountability court prior to obtaining his physical custody such inquiry shall be converted into investigation so that there shall be equality in doing equity in between accused, holders of public offices whether such accused are serving in superior services or serving in any other department of the government.”
During hearing of the petition, Deputy Prosecutor General of NAB, Muhammad Jamil Khan, submitted that the judges of three accountability courts had passed an order on June 13 through which the NAB was restrained from voluntary return deal with the incarcerated accused. He submitted that the order was not only a violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the famous verdict in Asfandyar Wali Khan case, in which the apex court had declared voluntary deal and plea bargain with the NAB as a right of the accused persons. Furthermore, he said the impugned order was in fact an attempt to curtail the power of the NAB chairman as provided under sections 24, 25 (a) and (b) of the NAO 1999.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had challenged the order of accountability court restraining the chairman NAB from voluntary return deal with the accused persons in corruption cases after their arrest.
The NAB claimed in the petition that the accountability courts judges had declared that the inquiry against a public office holder in corruption cases after arrest would be converted into investigation. The NAB further added that the court had declared that after the arrest and obtaining physical remand from the court, the NAB could not opt for voluntary return deal with the accused public office holder and could only accept the plea bargain.
The order passed by the Accountability Court No.1 headed by Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and two more judges comprising of Muhammad Asim Imam and Tariq Yousafzai states that, “Any accused who is holder of public office involved in corruption and corrupt practices is arrested and brought before the accountability court prior to obtaining his physical custody such inquiry shall be converted into investigation so that there shall be equality in doing equity in between accused, holders of public offices whether such accused are serving in superior services or serving in any other department of the government.”
During hearing of the petition, Deputy Prosecutor General of NAB, Muhammad Jamil Khan, submitted that the judges of three accountability courts had passed an order on June 13 through which the NAB was restrained from voluntary return deal with the incarcerated accused. He submitted that the order was not only a violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the famous verdict in Asfandyar Wali Khan case, in which the apex court had declared voluntary deal and plea bargain with the NAB as a right of the accused persons. Furthermore, he said the impugned order was in fact an attempt to curtail the power of the NAB chairman as provided under sections 24, 25 (a) and (b) of the NAO 1999.
-
Polar Vortex ‘exceptional’ Disruption: Rare Shift Signals Extreme February Winter -
Which Countries Are Worst And Best In Public Sector AI Race? -
Matthew McConaughey Opens Up About His Painful Battle With THIS -
Emma Stone Reveals She Is ‘too Afraid’ Of Her ‘own Mental Health’ -
China Unveils ‘Star Wars’-like Missile Warship For Space Combat -
King Charles Facing Pressure Inside Palace Over 'Andrew Problem' -
Trump Refuses Apology For Video Depicting Obama As Apes Amid Growing Backlash -
Jesy Nelson Reflects On Leaving Girls' Band Little Mix -
World’s First Pokemon Theme Park Opens In Tokyo, Boosts Japan Tourism -
Waymo Trains Robotaxis In Virtual Cities Using DeepMind’s Genie 3 -
5 Simple Rules To Follow For Smooth, Healthy Hair -
$44 Billion Bitcoin Blunder: Bithumb Exchange Apologizes For Accidental Payout -
Katie Price Ends Public Feud With Ex Peter Andre After 16 Years -
Apple May Bring ChatGPT And Other AI Apps To CarPlay -
Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Likely To Attend Super Bowl Halftime Show 2026 -
AI Next Big Trial: Elon Musk Calls For ‘Galileo Test’ To Prove True Intelligence