MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others
The petitioner, a Patwari facing an inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau regarding assets beyond known sources of income, impugned an order of the Lahore High Court which had rejected his plea to annul a voluntary return agreement and seek a refund of the amount paid thereunder. The core legal question was whether a completed voluntary return transaction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, executed without arrest and followed by the closure of inquiry, could subsequently be challenged on the grounds of duress and coercion at a belated stage. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the option, deposited the ascertained liability without raising any initial grievance, and availed the benefit of the procedure, rendering the transaction a past and closed transaction that could not be reopened. The Court laid down the principle that an accused who voluntarily avails the benefit of voluntary return and pays the determined liability without contemporaneous protest cannot subsequently challenge the transaction or seek a refund on belated allegations of duress.
- Can an accused challenge a voluntary return agreement after paying the ascertained liability and closing the inquiry?
- Whether a voluntary return transaction can be reopened on a belated plea of duress?
- Is a person who pays the determined liability under voluntary return entitled to a refund of the amount so paid?
ORDER
1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH,J.--The Petitioner has impugned the order of Lahore High Court dated 09.01.2017 whereby the petitioner's plea to annual the "plea again" entered into by him with the NAB and to direct the authorities to refund the amount so paid in consequence to such voluntary return,was rejected.
2. 2.The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a Patwari on 7.8.2012, during an inquiry, was offered voluntary return which the petitioner, tinder pressure and to save his honour, accepted and in consequent thereto paid a sum of Rs.96,26,363/- which voluntary return is liable to be annulled and the respondents be directed to refund the said amount.
3. 3.The learned counsel representing the NAB contended that during inquiry, the petitioner has voluntary accepted the offer of the voluntary return extended by the Chairman,. NAB and, thereafter paid the amount so determined leading to closure of inquiry. It was submitted that the petitioner, during the proceedings was never arrested which would show that the acceptance of plea bargain and consequent payment was voluntary. As per learned counsel, the plea of the petitioner at this belated stage that, the voluntary return was under duress, is an afterthought. It was lastly contended that the transaction being a past and closed, could not be re-opened.
4. 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that the inquiry against the petitioner for having "assets beyond means" was initiated somewhere in the year, 2012. The officer conducting the inquiry, dug out the assets and bank accounts of the petitioner which were found beyond his known source of income and, therefore, the NAB authorities vide letter dated 6.8.2014 offered the A petitioner an option for voluntarily return of the illegal gained money. The record further reflects that the petitioner vide his letter dated 8.9.2014, asked the NAB authorities to intimate him his liability ascertained by the inquiry officer and also the grounds for ascertaining such liability so that he could opt for the option. It appears that the petitioner was duly informed about his liability and ultimately he paid an amount of Rs. 96,26,363/- without raising any grievance in respect of the amount or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to ascertain his liability. The petitioner ultimately availed the benefit of voluntary return. The petitioner, therefore, at this juncture, cannot be allowed to question his own voluntary return or the method adopted by the inquiry officer to determine the corruption money.
5. No case for interference is made out calling for interference by this Court. This petition, as a consequence, is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.
Cited by 3 cases
- DAN GUNNA R BAJRNE ANDERSON vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 53, 2019 PLD Islamabad 566
- Dan Gunnar Bjarne Anderson vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior & 3 others 2019 IHC 106
- RIAZ HUSSAIN KALHORO Versus State 2022 YLRN 47