SAEEDULLAH SOOMRO and another vs THE STATE through National
This matter concerns a petition for bail filed by a convict, Saeedullah Soomro, who was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by the Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The petitioner challenged his conviction before the High Court, but the appeal remained pending for an extended period despite being fixed for hearing over twelve times. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the disposal of his appeal, contrary to the statutory mandate requiring disposal within thirty days. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal had been adjourned repeatedly without valid justification and noted the failure of the prosecution to explain the delay in adhering to the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to specific conditions, including the surrender of his passport and placement on the Exit Control List. The judgment emphasizes the judiciary's obligation to ensure timely disposal of appeals as prescribed by law.
- Is an appellant entitled to bail when an appeal against conviction remains pending for an inordinate period due to repeated adjournments?
- Does the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 mandate a specific timeframe for the disposal of appeals?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a criminal petition into an appeal to grant relief in cases of procedural delay?
- Section 10, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 32(b), National Accountability Ordinance 1999
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions Nos.42-K and 43-K of 2003. Criminal Petition No,43-K of 2003 is not pressed and the same is dismissed, as such.
2. Learned Judge of Accountability Court Sindh, Karachi convicted petitioner, Saeedullah Soomro, on 6-11-2001 under section 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 5 years and to pay fine of Rupees two crores or in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 2-1/2 years. Against said judgment and conviction the petitioner preferred appeal before High Court on 13-11-2001, which is still pending for decision. He is in custody since 4-7-2001.
3. We heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. It appears that more than 12 times the appeal was fixed for hearing and on two occasions arguments were heard, yet, the judgment was not delivered. On one ground or the other as a routine the matter was adjourned. Under section 32(b) of the NAB Ordinance, the appeal is required to be finally disposed of within 30 days from the date of its filing. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has earned one year remission and now only about two years he is to remain in custody as substantive sentence. Mr. Tariq Anwar, D.P.-G. For NAB was not able to give any satisfactory reply as to why on so many occasions the matter was adjourned and why the concrete steps were not taken to conclude it within the time limit prescribed by law.
5. Accordingly, the petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. Bail is granted to the petitioner/appellant in the sum of Rs,50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty lacs) with P.R. Bond in the like amount with two sureties each being of Rs,25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five lacs) to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar of this Court at Karachi.The appellant is directed to surrender his passport immediately before High Court, if so has not already been done. He will not be released on bail till above direction is complied with. NAB Authorities are directed to see that his name is entered in the exit control list.
Cited by 1 case
- SHARJEEL INAM MEMON Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU 2018 PCrLJN 34