Sultan Qamar Siddiqui and others vs National Accountability Bureau and others
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court impugning the dismissal of applications seeking the unfreezing of bank accounts that had been frozen under section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 during a trial for accumulating assets beyond known sources of income. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court, but a subsequent application to lift the caution on the accounts was dismissed due to the pendency of an acquittal appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal question was whether frozen bank accounts must remain frozen simply because NAB has filed an appeal against the accused's acquittal. The court held that upon acquittal, the evidentiary basis for freezing the property ends, and the mere filing of an acquittal appeal does not constitute a continuation of the trial so as to justify maintaining the freeze. The court laid down the principle that the double presumption of innocence following acquittal strongly favors the release of the accused's property, and the pendency of an acquittal appeal does not deprive the accused of their constitutional right to deal with their property.
- Does the acquittal of an accused person terminate the legal basis for freezing property under section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
- Whether the mere filing of an acquittal appeal by the National Accountability Bureau acts as a bar to unfreezing an acquitted person's bank accounts?
- Can an Accountability Court refuse to lift a caution on property after the trial has concluded in an acquittal?
- Section 23, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 13, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
ORDER
M UHAM M AD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Petitioner No.1 standing a trial in Reference No.12/2017 against allegation of accumulating assets beyond source of income, in the enquiry of which, his and his family members' bank accounts were frozen and put under caution under section 23 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, filed an application before the relevant Accountability Court at Karachi for releasing certain amounts for meeting household expenses, dismissed vide an order dated 28.02.2020, has filed this petition, impugning the said order in addition to praying for unfreezing the said bank accounts.
2. Interestingly, during pendency of this petition, the entire trial against petitioner No.1 has culminated into his acquittal vide a judgment dated 13.11.2020. After the acquittal, he moved an application under section 13 of N.A.O., 1999 for lifting caution and unfreezing the bank accounts but it has met the same fate vide an order dated 23.04.2021 by the trial court, postulating, among others, that since NAB has filed acquittal appeal, a continuation of the trial, it cannot decide the issue.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor, NAB despite acquittal of petitioner No.1 in the reference has unnaturally tried to defend the impugned orders and has attempted to convince us that pending acquittal appeal, petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed here. We however, find such contention totally absurd and besides the mark, an objection only for the sake of objection. Section 23, N.A.O., 1999 allows the Chairman, NAB to put caution on the property of an accused involved in an offence from transferring the same, creating charge, alienate possession thereof, etc. However, after conclusion of the trial, resulting into acquittal of the accused, vires of power exercised as such come to an end and get merged into the judgment. Its challenge to this court would not change such situation, unless ordered otherwise and the appeal admitted for regular hearing. The element of double presumption of innocence running in favour of the accused would lean strongly against any presumed probability of it being upset in the acquittal appeal. For it is settled that the principles governing consideration in acquittal appeal are quite distinctive to what regulates the appeal against the conviction.
Acquittal appeal is not right of the appellant, whereas it is vice versa in ID the appeal against the - conviction, which point the learned trial court totally lost sight of while deciding application under section 13 of N.A.O., 1999 and rendering the Judgment with an omission to cover this aspect of the case.
4. We may clarify here that mere filing of acquittal appeal for the purpose as is being dealt with here would not be considered as a continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.1 in stricto sensu either creating an insurmountable barrier to exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this court to pass orders for making ends of justice meet. Petitioner No.1 went through rigorous of the trial and emerged vindicated as, prima facie, no incriminating evidence to have accumulated property, frozen by the Chairman NAB, illegally and beyond sources of income was found against him.
5. Therefore on account of pendency of the acquittal appeal the accused would be deprived of means to deal with his property as per his wishes in accordance with law, which otherwise is his right guaranteed under the Constitution. We, therefore, find no merits in the arguments of learned Special Prosecutor, NAB and allow this petition along with pending applications as prayed.
6. The petition stands disposed of in above terms along with pending application(s).