CITATION PLD 2001 SC 607 ASFANDYAR WALI KHAN AND OTHERS V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CABINET DIVISION,ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS

1. NAME : SANJAY KUMAR
REGISTRATION NO: 06381813063
DEPARTMENT: LAW
QUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITY,
ISLAMABAD

2. CITATION PLD 2001 SC 607
PARTIES:
ASFANDYAR WALI KHAN AND OTHERS
V/S
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH
CABINET DIVISION ,ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS

3. Introduction:
■ Under Article 184/3 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973
■ A number of petitions was filled to challenge the NAB
ordinance, 2000.
■ NAB ordinance, 2000 was also challenged in the above
mentioned case.
■ According to the petitioners the Ordinance was against to the
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 so should be declared null
and void.

4. Facts of the Case
■ It creates a parallel and non federal Judicial system against
the ordinary Judicial system of Pakistan.
■ So it violates Article 175 ,202 ,203, of the Constitution
■ Under Section 14 (D) of the NAB ordinance burden of proof
shifted from prosecution to accused which is again the
violation of Article 4 and 25 of the Constitution.

5. Facts of the Case
■ Section 2 of the ordinance gives the retrospective
punishment because its enforcement effected from Jan 1,
1985.
■ Article 12 of the Constitution which provides the protection
against retrospective punishment is being violated in the
ordinance.

6. Facts of the case
■ According to section 23 of ordinance during the trial
Accused cannot transfer his property through gift,exchange
or sell.
■ Which is violation against the fundamental rights related to
property in section 23 and 24 of the Constitution .

7. Facts of the case
■ According to the Section 14 (D) of the ordinance remand
time has increased to 90 Days.
■ Which violates section 167 of CrPC.
■ According to Section 16(D) NAB chairman has extensive
authority to select the venue for trial of an accused
anywhere in the country.

8. Facts of the Case
■ According to the Section 17 (C) of the ordinance
accountability courts have authority to adopt their own
procedure for the proceeding of the trials.
■ Excluding the procedure given in CRPC.
■ It violates the Article 425.

9. Decision of the Court
■ Decision was given on 24th of April 2001
■ 4 Member Bench
■ Headed by Chief Justice Arshad Hassan Khan
■ Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri
■ Ch Muhammad Arif
■ Qazi Muhammad Farooq

10. Court Observations:
■ It is a special law.
■ To combat the high level of corruption in the country by the
politicians, bureaucrats, public office holders etc....
■ In order to make them accountable before law.

11. Court Observations:
■ Burden of Proof on accused is valid because it is an
exception in special laws which is mentioned in
■ Article 121 of QSO And
■ Section 4 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947 and
also in PPC .

12. Court Observation
■ Ordinance cannot be judged in the eyes of fundamental
rights
■ Because they had been suspended after the emergency
■ 90 days remand period is justified.
■ Because in corruption cases record of banks,companies is
involved for the inquiry and investigation purpose which is
time consuming activity.

13. Court Observation
■ Ordinance does not violates the articles 23 and 24 of the
Constitution of the Pakistan.
■ According to the Section 23 of the ordinance
■ It is an interim measure relating property of the accused
■ After declare innocent accused can exercise his
constitutional rights over his property

14. Recommendations by the Supreme
Court
■ Supreme Court could not declares NAB ordinance as Null
and Void
■ It give some guidelines and recommendations to amend
the ordinance accordingly
■ Such guidelines had been followed to make amendments
in ordinance

15. Thank You