Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor-General, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad vs Mir Faiq Ali Jamali
This matter originated from a dispute regarding the commencement date of the respondent's disqualification under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, following his conviction. The trial court had observed that the disqualification period began upon the payment of the fine, while the High Court set aside this observation without resolving the core issue of when the disqualification period actually commences. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of interpreting the phrase 'to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence' under Section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that, in light of Section 53 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, a sentence includes both imprisonment and the payment of a fine. Consequently, the Court ruled that the disqualification period under Section 15(a) commences only after a convict has served both the imprisonment and paid the fine. The Court clarified that the respondent's disqualification period began on the date he deposited the fine, as that was the date he had fully served his entire sentence.
- When does the period of disqualification under Section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 commence for a convict?
- Does the term 'sentence' under Section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 include the payment of a fine?
- Is a convict considered to have served their entire sentence if they have completed imprisonment but have not yet paid the imposed fine?
- Section 9, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 10, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 33-E, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 15(a), National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 53, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ.: The respondent namely Mir Faiq Ali Jamali was tried in connection with various References and ultimately he was convict ed by the Accountability Court-I, Balochis tan, Quetta for an offence under section 9 read with section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and was variously sentenced. His appeals filed against his convictions and sentences were subsequently dismissed not only by the High Court but also by this Court. Later on an applicatio n was submitted by the National Accountability Bureau before the trial court under section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 seeking an order regarding recovery of fine from the respondent and the said application was disposed of by the trial court with an observation that the respondent' s disqualification started from the date the respondent paid the fine imposed upon him. The said observation of the trial court was set aside by the High Court through the impugned judgments passed by it and it was held by the High Court that the trial court was not justified in making the above mentioned observation. The impugned judgments passed by the High Court show that the controversy regarding commencement of the period of disqualification of the respondent under section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was not resolved by the High Court. Hence, the present appeals by leave of this Court granted on 28.06.2018.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of these cases with their assistance.
3. The issue raised through the present appeals is regarding the time of commencement of the respondent' s disqualification under section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The trial court had observed that the respondent' s disqualification was to start from the date when he paid the requisite fine but the High Court had set aside that observation of the trial court without resolving the said issue. The words used by the legislature in section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are that the period of disqualification is "to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence". In the cases in hand the respondent had served out his sentences of imprisonment on 22.10.2013 when he was released from the jail and according to the record he had deposited the requisite fine on 29.11.2016. According to section 53, PPC the punishments to be served by convicts include a sentence of imprisonme nt as well as a sentence of fine and, thus, in terms of section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 the respondent could be said to have served his entire sentence when he was to have undergone the sentence of imprisonment as well as served the sentence of fine by depositing the same. In this view of the matter the time of commencement of the respondent' s disqualification under section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was to be the date on which he had completely served out all his sentences by undergoing the sentences of imprisonment as well as by payment of fine which was 29.11.2016. It is, therefore, clarified that the disqualification of the respondent was to be reckoned from 29.11.2016. With this clarification these appeals are allowed and disposed of.