Besides, this Court is guided by the
observation given by the apex Court in ABDUL
AZIZ MEMON and others versus The STATE
and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 594),
in respect of the scope of NAO, 1999, when
compared to Ehtisab Act, 1997 with reference
to Section 35-C. Relevant extract from
relevant para 12 at page 630 is reproduced as
under;-
“….. The Preamble to the Ehtesab Act,
1997 manifested that the said law had
been enacted only "for eradication of
corruption and corrupt practices from the
public offices" whereas the Preamble to
the National Accountability Ordinance,
1999 does not even mention "public
offices" and instead it states the objects to
be achieved as to eradicate corruption
and corrupt practices and hold
accountable all those persons accused of
such practices; to provide for effective
measures for the detection, investigation,
prosecution and speedy disposal of cases
involving corruption, corrupt practices,
misuse or abuse of power or authority,
misappropriation of property, taking of
kickbacks, commissions; recovery of
outstanding amounts from those persons
who have committed default in the
repayment of amounts to banks, financial
institutions, governmental agencies and
other agencies; recovery of State money
and other assets from those persons who
have misappropriated or removed such
money or assets through corruption,
corrupt practices and misuse of power or
authority; to seek, obtain or give mutual
legal assistance internationally in matters
concerning corruption; and to educate
the society about the causes and effects
of corruption and corrupt practices and to implement policies and procedures for
the prevention of corruption in the
society. It is but obvious that the scope of
applicability of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is much
larger than the scope envisioned in the
Ehtesab Act, 1997 and, thus, it would be
na ve to examine the former through the
narrow prism of the latter. The stated
object of the National Accountability
Ordinance, 1999 was to rid the whole
society of the menace of corruption and
that is why section 33C of the said
Ordinance had provided as follows:
33C. Measures for the prevention of
corruption and corrupt practices.- The
Chairman NAB, shall from time to time as
he deems fit, constitute committees
comprising officers of the NAB or other
persons or organizations from the private
or public sectors to—
(a) educate and advise public authorities,
holders of public office and the
community at large on measures to
combat corruption and corrupt practices;
(b) develope, arrange, supervise,
participate in or conduct educational
programmes or media campaigns, and
generally to disseminate information on
the detrimental effects of corruption and
corrupt practices and the importance of
maintaining the integrity of public
administration;
(c) examine the laws in force, and also
rules and regulations relating to the
practice and procedure of various
ministries, departments of the Federal
Government or Provincial Government,
statutory or other public corporations or
bodies, and the conduct of holders of
public office and to recommend
amendments in such laws, rules or
regulations, as the case may be, in order
to eliminate corruption and corrupt
practices;
(d) instruct, advise and assist any
statutory or other public corporation or
bodies or upon request, any organization
in the private and public sector on
measures for the reduction and
elimination of corruption and corrupt
practices; and
(e) monitor the implementation of the
instructions and advice as aforesaid and
to assess and evaluate the success or
otherwise of such instructions and advice
on the reduction and elimination of
corruption and corrupt practices.”
Lahore High court
Criminal Proceedings
189554/18
2018 LHC 1659
0 Comments