National Accountability Bureau Versus Sheikh Muhammad Afzal

Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J .--- Cursory facts of the case are that NAB filed a Reference No. 62/2008 ( "the Reference" ) titled as "The State v. Sh. Muhammad Afzal, etc." under section 18 (g) read with section 24 (b) with the allegations pertaining to the provisions of section 9(a)(i)(iii)(vi)(ix) and (xii) punishable under section 10(a) and serial No. 05 of the Schedule of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (the "NAO, 1999") which is pending adjudication before the Accountability Court No. X, Lahore. NAB through Deputy PGA, NAB Lahore filed application under section 31-B(2) of NAO, 1999 for withdrawal of prosecution on behalf of Chairman NAB, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.11.2024. NAB through Deputy PGA, NAB Lahore challenged the above mentioned order dated 18.11.2024 through titled writ petition. During the pendency of above titled writ petition Bank of Punjab filed an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for impleadment as respondent through C.M. No. 04 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3022 of 2025.

2.It is, inter alia , contended by learned counsel for the applicant/bank of Punjab that BOP is an aggrieved party in this case, although it is not necessary party but at the same time is a proper party; that while filing writ petition applicant/Bank has not been impleaded as respondent therein; that applicant /BOP is the complainant in the aforementioned reference and as such a victim of the acts of corruption and corrupt practices for which the accused stand charged in the above mentioned reference; that as per provisions of section 10 of the NAO, 1999 any assets and/or pecuniary resources which are found to have been acquired by the accused by money obtained through corruption and corrupt practice are to be forfeited and concerned bank or financial institution (BOP in the instant case) as the case may be would be entitled to receive the same; additionally submitted that recent events have transpired during the trial proceedings that NAB now openly favoring the accused in the afore said reference and continuously making efforts to secure their acquittal and return of proprieties seized from them which is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case; that Chairman NAB has not made any consultation with the Prosecutor General, NAB and simply relied upon the recommendation of high level committee of the NAD which is nullity in the eye of law; that NAB had been strongly contested all the applications filed by the accused for dismissal of reference or for acquittal of accused under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. that 81 witnesses had been recorded in this case and remaining evidence has been closed by the NAB being in connived with the accused; that the case in hand do not pertain to loan rather under the garb of restructing or rescheduling of loan, in fact fraud had been committed, in this way, this case do not fall within the domain of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001; moreover the charge against the accused has been framed with the allegation that fraud was committed by the accused under the garb of loan. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the case laws reported as "Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed and 2 others" (PLD 1977 SC 451), "Abdur Rahim and 14 others v. The State and another" (1981 SCMR 294), "Saad Shibli v. The State and another v. Puttan and Others (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 617), "Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others" (AIR 1987 SC 877) "Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State and others" (1992 SCMR 1983), "Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate and another v. The State" (1996 SCMR 1342), "Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq and another" (2011 SCMR 713), "Sister Mina Lalita Barinva v. State of Orissa and others" (AIR 2014 Supreme Court 782), "Messrs Wak Limited Multan Road, Lahore v. Collector Central Excise and Sale Tax Lahore (Now Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, Lahore) and others" (2018 SCMR 1474), "Qaiser and another v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1641), "Mst. Samrana Nawaz and others v. M.C.B Bank Ltd. And others" (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 581), All Pakistan Newspapers Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2004 SC 600), "Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others" (PLD 1995 SC 423), "Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC) Karachi and 4 others" (1999 SCMR 2883), "Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others" (PLD 2001 SC 607), "Bank of Punjab through Group Head of its Special Projects v. Accountability Court No. 1, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 2014 Lahore 92), "Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore and others" (2011 SCMR 408), "Shahid Orakazi and another v. Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law Islamabad and another" (PLD 2011 SC 365), "Ch. Nisar Ali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2013 SC 568), "Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S) Association U.P. and others v. Union of India and others" (1993 Supp(1) SC cases 730) .

3.The learned Additional Prosecutor General NAB has contended that in terms of section 31(B)(2) of NAO, 1999 Chairman NAB is fully competent to recommend for withdrawal of reference. Moreover, a high level committee was also constituted in this respect and after the consultation with the Prosecutor General, Chairman NAB recommended for withdrawal. Further argued that Bank of Punjab is not the complainant in this reference and the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a news clipping. The Bank of Punjab is neither aggrieved party nor necessary or proper party. The proceedings in hand are criminal nature, in this way, Bank of Punjab cannot be impleaded as party in this case. According to law only Chairman NAB, Prosecutor General and accused are relevant with respect to proceedings of reference. To embellish his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the following case laws titled as "Capt. (Retd) Nayyar Islam v. Judge Accountability Court No. III and others" (2012 SCMR 669) and "Naseem Abdul Sattar and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others" (PLD 2013 Sindh 357) that provisions of section 20 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 are applicable and taking it appropriate after appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as taken into the context the amendment in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 having retrospective application that the matter has culminated whereas Reference No. 62/2008 is required to be withdrawn for want of jurisdiction. The matter is legal in nature and is one of the factors in the writ petition before this Court, for the reason, Bank of Punjab has no locus standi to intervene in the proceedings but also neither a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the Lis .

4.Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 while adopting the arguments of learned Additional Prosecutor for NAB further submitted that withdrawal of reference under section 31(B)(2) of NAO, 1999 is in compliance and as per direction of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos. 1377 and 1378 of 2015 in the case wherein learned Prosecutor General stated that inquiries in these matters were initiated in 2013 and according to his opinion, these should be withdrawn. The Reference will be withdrawn by the NAB without delay. The same order has been upheld in the subsequent review petition filed by NAB bearing C.R.P. No. 549/2015 vide order dated 15.03.2016 in which Bank of Punjab was also a party and duly represented. Similarly, in case titled as "Bank of Punjab and others v. Sheikh Muhammad Afzal, etc." in CPs Nos. 20, 27, 39 and 45 of 2009 vide order dated 01.06.2017 the august Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of all matters concerning Bank of Punjab, Sheikh Muhammad Afzal (respondent No. 2) with the observations that on account of subsequent developments we find that the present matters have seemingly been rendered infructuous. Perhaps for this reason no one is present on behalf of Bank of Punjab to pursue the matter, therefore, all the mattes are disposed of on both counts. However, if these matters have any live issue, Bank of Punjab may move an application for resurrection thereof within a period of six weeks. In this way, it is clear that Reference is supposed to be withdrawn by the NAB. The above mentioned orders are binding within the meaning of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the leamed Accountability Court No. X is illegal, unlawful, void ab-initio and liable to be set aside. He further relied upon the dictum laid in cases titled as "Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investment Agency and others" (2017 SCMR 1218), "Abid Amin and 2 others v. National Accountability Bureau and others" (PLD 2023 SC 252). Moreover, forum for the redressal of grievance between Financial Institutions and Customers even in cases of fraud, willful default, etc. is the Banking Court and by virtue of section 20(7) of FIO, 2001. Even otherwise, under section 4 of FIO, 2001 and the case of Syed Mushahid Shah ibid FIO, 2001 shall have overriding effect over NAO, 1999 in such matters. He further argued that above mentioned view and the ouster jurisdiction of NAB has been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in case titled as "Mian Ayaz Anwar and others v. State Bank of Pakistan and others" (2019 CLD 375), Lastly submitted that under sections 31(D) and 31(DD) of NAO, 1999 there is no approval or reference of the Governor State Bank of Pakistan to institute the proceedings and hence the entire proceedings are void ab-initio.

5.Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 also renders his arguments almost on the same lines as argued by learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

6.Learned counsel for respondent No 10 vociferously argued that in an identical matter Khurram Iftikhar/respondent No. 10 approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 23231 of 2015 and proceedings initiated by NAB against him as well as his co-accused were quashed/set aside vide order dated 07.12.2018 in the light of detailed judgment of even date rendered in Writ Petition No. 14172/2012 which was also approved for reporting. The decision of the case is "Mian Ayaz Anwar and others v. State Bank of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2019 Lah. 310). He further argued that the above mentioned order was challenged before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through CPLA No. 1390/2019 wherein Bank of Punjab was also respondent. The above mentioned CPLA was withdrawn through C.M. No. 7531 of 2023 on 28.11.2023. He further stated that Bank of Punjab has not challenged the order passed in the above mentioned writ petition by a Full Bench of this Court, in this way, matter attained finality. The case in hand is almost same. He also laid much emphasis on the point that athough in case titled as "Bank of Punjab through Group Head of its Special Projects v. Accountability Court No. 1, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 2014 Lahore 92), it has been held that Bank of Punjab is an aggrieved party but case titled as "Capt. (Retd.) Nayyar Islam v. Judge, Accountability Court No. III and others" (2012 SCMR 669) which has binding force, was not taken into account and even discussed by High Court, in this way, Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 will prevail and judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan will be followed. With respect to case titled as "Bank of Punjab through Group Head of its Special Projects v. Accountability Court No. 1, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 2014 Lahore 92) the principle of sub silencio is also fully attracted.

7.Learned counsel for respondent No. 18 has argued that writ petition in hand has arisen from the proceedings in criminal statute, NAO. In the prosecution of cases under NAO a complainant, victim or aggrieved person does not figure. He has placed reliance upon the case laws titled as "The State v. Abdul Qayyum" (2011 PCr.LJ 252). Moreover, Court have no power to add party to criminal proceedings, even otherwise, complainant has no right of appeal in terms of section 32 of NAO, 1999. He further argued that proceedings of NAB cannot be used for the performance of civil obligation. A reference in this respect has been made upon the case laws titled as "Rafiq Haji Usman v. Chairman NAB and another" (2015 SCMR 1575), "Salman Asharaf v. Additional District Judge, Lahore, etc." (2023 SCMR 1292) that section 31 (DD) has been inserted by subsequent amendment, full effect has to be given to this provision, because obviously legislature wanted to provide new right and obligations and to bring a change in existing legal position by making this amendment. Earlier judgments under section 31-D cannot be read so as to eclipse the operation and effect of section 31-DD. He also laid much stress upon the fact that approval of loan was granted by Board of Directors and not only Khurram Iftikhar, he only has been made as an accused meaning thereby the approval was legal. Lastly submitted that Chairman NAB is fully competent to withdraw the reference, if having regard to the totality of facts, circumstances and evidence, he is of the view that reference is unjustified.

8.We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record minutely with their able assistance.

9.The moot point for determination before this Court is that as to whether Chairman NAB is competent to recommend for withdrawal of reference after framing of charge and recording of some evidence, similarly, whether Bank of Punjab can be impleaded as a necessary and proper party as prayed for by the Bank of Punjab through C.M. No. 04 of 2025?

We have noticed that reference in question and withdrawal whereof is being sought by the National Accountability Bureau ("NAB") which was filed without approval of Governor State Bank of Pakistan and pertains to allegations of fraud having been committed by various entities and its sponsors, same cannot be proceeded with nor can be filed being in violation of procedural safeguards provided in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (the "Ordinance"). Section 31 (B), Section 31(D) and section 31(DD) are hereby reproduced as infra for the purposes of facilitation:-.

31D. Inquiry, investigation or proceedings in respect of imprudent bank loans, etc.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, no inquiry, investigation or proceedings in respect of imprudent loans, defaulted loans or rescheduled loans shall be initiated or conducted by the National Accountability Bureau against any person, company or financial institution without reference from Governor, State Bank of Pakistan: Provided that cases pending before any Accountability Court before coming into force of the National Accountability Bureau (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2000, shall continue to be prosecuted and 6[conducted] without reference from the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan.

31DD. Approval of the State Bank of Pakistan. -Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other low for the time being in force, no Inquiry, Investigation or proceedings in respect of a decision of a Board 8[or credit committee] of a Bank or financial institution, shall be initiated without the prior approval of the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan.

Section 31(DD) has been introduced through the amendment in the year 2022 by way of Act XI of 2022, loan facilities were granted to various entities to "Haris Steel Group" from the year 2003-2004. Thereafter, by approval of Board loan facilitles were restructured and rescheduled. As per investigation report main allegation against the accused was that loans were granted by borrowers against fake document and through fraud, unlawful merger of accounts approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank of Punjab, similarly, loans were rescheduled for period of seven years in November, 2007 and further rescheduled for elven years on 24.03.2008. Loss of Bank of Punjab principal amount of Rs. 8.404 Billion and mark up 3.185 Billion. Similarly, charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is about availing of finance facilities by borrowers through fraud and fictitious documents, charge No. 5 is approval of merger/consolidation of loan facilities by Credit Committee and Bank officers, Charge No. 10 is approval of consolidation/merger/ rescheduling of loans by Board members. It is noteworthy that section 31(D) of the Ordinance has non-obstante provision having overriding effect, postulates that no inquiry, investigation or proceedings in respect of imprudent loans, defaulted loans or rescheduled loans shall be initiated or conducted by the NAB against any person, company or financial institution without reference from Governor State Bank of Pakistan. The definition of imprudent loans has been described in glossary of Sate Bank of Pakistan as infra:-

Similarly, imprudent loan have also been described in case titled as "Kalb-e-Ali and 2 others v. Chairman, National, Accountability Bureau and four others" (2011 PCr.LJ 565) as under:-

The above version of the respondent Bank itself reveals that the case in hand is of "Imprudent loan". Since the term "imprudent loan" has not been defined in the Ordinance as such we quote the meanings given to the term in Black's Law Dictionary wherein the word "prudent" and term "prudent Investor Rule" has been given meanings and the term "Imprudent" is opp to the word prudent:-

So far as the defaulted loans are concerned the definition of willful default has been described in section 5(u) of NAO, 1999 as well as section 2(g) of FIO, 2001 which reads as under:-

2[(g) "willful default" means -- (i)

Similarly, willful default has been discussed in case titled as Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division Islamabad and others (PLD 2001 SC 607) as under:-.

199. Under section 5(r) 'wilful default' has been defined as under:

In Black's Law Dictionary the words 'default' and 'wilful' have been defined as under:

Whereas, structured loans has been described in glossary of State Bank of Pakistan which is as under:

Moreso, in case of "Abid Amin and 2 others v. National Accountability Bureau" (PLD 2023 SC 252) has been observed as under:-

Moreover in sections 17 and 18 of the Contract Act, 1872 definitions of fraud and misrepresentation has been given as under:-:

18. "Misrepresentation" defined. "Misrepresentation" means and includes (1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; (2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; (3) causing, however innocently, a parry to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.

Whereas definition of term obligation finds in section 2 (e) of FIO, 2001 which is also reproduced as infra:-

Insofar as the finance is concerned, definition of the same has been described in section 2(d) of FIO, 2001 which is reproduced as below:-

(ix)] any other facility availed by a customer from a financial Institution.

10.After going through the above mentioned definitions and provisions of law we are of the view that there is no difference between loan or fraudulent loan. In case of "Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mohsin Ali and others" (1999 CLC 1173) it has been held that difference between fraud and misrepresentation is one of intent and these terms of more or less synonymous. Relevant paragraph of above mentioned judgment is mentioned below

11.Another important aspect of this case which cannot be lost sight of is that against Khurram Iftikhar respondent No. 10 of this writ petition, almost identical allegations were levelled in another case that he being a CEO of M/s Amtex (Ex-Director of Bank of Punjab) by misusing his authority with the active connivance and collusion of other accused persons obtained credit facilities in sheer violation of section 19(4) of the Bank of Punjab Act, 1989 and Prudential Regulations of State Bank of Pakistan. The Bank facility were obtained in the names of M/s Amtex Ltd, M/s Shama Exports (Pvt) and M/s Amfort (pvt) amounting to Rs. 6139 Million. Alleged amounts of funds were siphoned off out of Pakistan by sending repeated shipments to a company abroad (Dubai based company) namely Dhabooi Trading Company without actual repatriation of export process through proper channel. It was further alleged that Khurram Iftikhar along with co-accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently obtained finance facility amounting to Rs. 8,089 Million as on 31.05.2013 and caused a colossal loss to the Bank and the said amount yet to be recovered. It is noteworthy that proceedings against Khurram Iftikhar was challenged by him through Writ Petition No. 23231 of 2015 which were allowed vide order dated 07.12.2018 reasons recorded in detailed judgment of even date rendered in Writ Petition No. 14172 of 2012 case titled as "Mian Ayaz Anwar and others v. State Bank of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2019 Lahore 310). It is noteworthy that Bank of Punjab was respondent in the above mentioned writ petition but not challenged the above mentioned order, however, NAB challenged the same through CPLA No. 1390/2019 which was subsequently withdrawn through CMA No. 7531 of 2023 filed in CPLA No. 1390/2019 vide order dated 28.11.2023, in this way, matter attained finality. We have observed that except the firms/companies there is no difference between the above mentioned case as well as case in hand, thus, the assertion of Chairman NAB that there is no chance of conviction of the accused of reference in question, is well reasoned and he has rightly been recommended for the withdrawal of the same.

12.We have noted that amendments have been made in the NAO, 1999 through Act XI 2022 promulgated on 22.06.2022. A new section 31(DD) was introduced in the Ordinance and the above mentioned Act has been called National Accountability (amended Act) 2022, as per section 1(2) this Act shall come into force at once and shall be deemed to have been taken into and from announcement National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XXVII), in this way, it has retrospective effect from 01.01.1985. It is noteworthy that above mentioned amendments have been validated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in ICA Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of 2023 decided on 06.06.2024. As per the mandate of section 31(DD) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 no inquiry, investigation or proceedings in respect of above can be initiated without the prior approval of the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan. If initiated/undertaken the same are nullity in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of "Naseem Abdul Sattar and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others" (PLD 2013 Sindh 357), "Haji Muzafar Butt v. NAB, etc." order dated 25.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 56008/2020 by this Court and "Abid Amin and 2 others v. National Accountability Bureau and others" (PLD 2023 SC 252).

So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Bank of Punjab in respect of above cannot be considered as binding because case law titled as "Capt. (Retd.) Nayyar Islam v. Judge, Accountability Court No. III and others" (2012 SCMR 669) was not discussed in the above mentioned case, similarly, section 31(DD) has been inserted in the year 2022 with retrospective effect and there is no judgment dealing with the same, in this way, principle of sub silencio has been described in Salmond Jurisprudence 12th Edition by P.J. Fitzgeraid, MA.

Precedents sub-silentio or not fully argued. The previous exceptions to the binding force of precedent can all be summed up as cases where the suthority of the precedent either is swept away by subsequent higher or equal authority or is undermined by inconsistency with previous higher or equal authority. We now come to the more subtle attack upon the authority of a precedent involved in saying that the decision was arrived at sub silentio.

A decision passes sub silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. The court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued_or considered by the court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio.

A good illustration is Gerard v. Worth of Paris, Ltd. (k) There, a discharged employee of a company, who had obtained damages against the company for wrongful dismissal, applied for garnishee order on a bank account standing in the name of the liquidator of the company. The only point argued was on the question of the priority of the claimant's debt, and, on this argument being heard, the Court of Appeal granted the order. No consideration was given to the question whether a garnishee order could properly be made on an account standing in the name of the Tiquidator. When, therefore, this very point was argued in a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal (1), the court held itself not bound by its previous decision. Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R.. said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been deliberately passed sub silentio by counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. He went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier court before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless, since it was decided without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority", it was not binding and would not be followed.

Even otherwise, in terms of Article 189 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan will be given preference over the judgment of the Supreme Court. The same proceedings in hand are criminal in nature, in prosecution of cases under NAO, a complainant, victim or aggrieved person do not figure. Even otherwise, no right of appeal has been given to the complainant. Section 32 of NAO 1999 is very much clear in this respect which is described below:-

[(d).......]

13.Moreover, proceedings under NAO cannot be used for the performance of civil obligation. In this case no charge has been framed, no evidence brought on the record and no proprieties have been identified which may be termed as having been made or acquitted by the accused persons from money obtained through corruption or corrupt practices. In absence of any specifics on that account, there can be no confiscation and, thus, Bank of Punjab cannot interfere in the proceedings on that basis. A reference in this respect may be made to the case "Rafiq Haji Usman v. Chairman NAB and another" (2015 SCMR 1575) and "Salman Asharaf v. Additional District Judge, Lahore, etc." (2023 SCMR 1292).

14.Record reflects that charges in the reference are proceedable by the Banking Court established under FIO, 2001 in terms of sections 20 (1)(b) and 20(2) of Finance Institution Ordinance, 2001. It is an admitted position in this case that a loan facility was Rs. 8.04 billion and up till now Rs. 6.025 billion has been returned to the Bank of Punjab, whereas, 112 proprieties of the customers are pledged with the bank. Bank of Punjab may file recovery suit against defaulters. As per mandate of section 4 of the FIO, 2001, the provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything in consistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Reliance in this respect may be made to the case of "Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investment Agency and others" (2017 SCMR 1218), "Mian Ayaz Anwar and others v. State Bank of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2019 Lahore 310) and "Haji Muzafar Butt v. NAB, etc." in Writ Petition NO. 56008/2020 decided on 25.01.2021 by this Court.

15.Now adverting to the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant/BOP in C.M. No. 04 of 2025 that BOP being aggrieved is a necessary and property party, for the reason, he be impleaded as respondent in this writ petition is concerned, we have noted that NAB has challenged the order dated 18.11.2024 through writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, whereas, applicant/BOP has filed application to be impleaded as party under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. We are of the view that it is settled proposition of law that in writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are applicable. In spite of filing application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. the applicant has filed application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C which is not competent and maintainable. Although learned counsel for the applicant/BOP has argued that one type of proceedings can be converted into other type of proceedings but he has not made any supplication nor file any miscellaneous application for treating his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. We have already discussed in preceding paragraphs that Bank of Punjab is neither aggrieved party nor has any locus standi to be n party in criminal proceedings in the shape of reference submitted by NAB.

16.Aftermath of the above mentioned discussion is that writ petition filed by NAB is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Judge Accountability Court No. IX is hereby set aside. Application filed by the NAB for withdrawal of Reference No. 62/2008 is hereby allowed as prayed for and the accused are acquitted in the case. Consequently, we do not see any scope in the application of Bank of Punjab to be impleaded as respondent, resultantly, C.M. No. 04 of 2025 filed in Writ Petition No. 3022 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed .

These are the reasoning of our short order dated 23.06.2025.

MH/N-4/L Order accordingly.