Lahore: An accountability court on Monday acquitted Jung-Geo Group editor-in-chief Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman and others in a 36-year-old private property case as the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) failed to prove any charges. . Violation of laws, corrupt practices and damage to the national exchequer.
Announcing the 20-page judgment on Monday, the accountability court judge, Asad Ali, remarked that "not a ton of evidence is available on record with respect to the abetment of any offense by Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman."
The judge said that no evidence of corrupt practice or abuse of authority was proved by the prosecution against the accused. The order said that no allegation in respect of any illegal gain or any damage to the national exchequer by anyone has been proved. The court, citing various precedents, observed that no criminal offense has been committed by MSR and others. The court order stated that "the prosecution case is based on conjecture and assumption."
The court observed that NAB failed to bring on record any incriminating material/evidence to establish dishonest intention in forwarding the summary to DG LDA for approval on the part of LDA officials Humayun Faiz and Mian Bashir. It is not alleged that any of the accused himself obtained any pecuniary advantage or illegal gain in any way. The court acquitted Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman on merit without taking advantage of the recent second and third amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
The order mentions that the property in question was purchased in 1986, while the administrative approval for Jauhar Town, Phase 2, was given in 1989, and the master plan was approved in 1990. The court, in its order, said that the plot was allotted/exempted to Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman in the year 1986 and for the additional land, the LDA directed the MSR to deposit the value of the additional land at the reserve price, which was given to the petitioner Mir Shakeel. -Ur-Rahman submitted accordingly. The court elaborated that no authority at any stage raised the objection that the petitioner MSR was required to pay the cost of the additional land at the market rate, but he paid the same on the reserve price. However, a letter dated 29.10.1992 is available on record, written by former LDA Director Qaiser Amin-ud-Din to the wife of the petitioner Shakeel-ur-Rehman, requiring him to pay the cost of the additional land . market value but said that the letter dated 20.06.1990 was written after the announcement of the policy, the court order read. The court held that the said policy had no retrospective effect and was enforceable only for future cases. The court categorically held that the letter dated 29.09.1992 has no legal validity in the eyes of law. The order stated that "when the policy letter dated 26.09.1990 was applicable for future cases, how could the petitioner be asked to pay the cost of additional land, which he had paid in the year 1986 as per the then SOP Policy Order dated 26.09.1990."
Talking about the letter written to the wife of MSR, the court again observed that "the letter was issued on 29.09.1992 in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice".
The court order states that there is nothing outstanding against MSR in respect of his exempt plots and this fact is also supported by subsequent events. The court elaborated that whenever an allottee/owner of the land makes an application to the LDA for issuance of No Recovery Certificate (NRC), the authority issues the NRC after verification of all dues, if any. The petitioner, Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman applied for NRC on several occasions, not even once, but NRC was rejected due to pendency of dues against him, the court order read.
The court said that it is on record on 9 March 2016, a report was sought regarding the challan of the additional area and any other recoverable charges against the petitioner. It is true that as per records in the year 2016, after credit verification of amounts and recovery of any dues, the Recovery Certificate (NRC) and Final Recovery Certificate (FNC) was issued by the Competent Authority and all payments were made. After verification, the matter was accepted for execution of transfer deed. The court also clarified that as per records from the year 2016 onwards, there was nothing outstanding against the exempted/transferred person, which was also confirmed by the prosecution witnesses.