Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 438
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: Muhammad Salik Nukhrich and others vs The State and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 SHC 438. In this matter between Muhammad Salik Nukhrich and others and The State and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025SHC438
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro Title: Muhammad Salik Nukhrich and others vs The State and others Case No.:Criminal Accountability Appeal No 18 of year 2022 and Criminal
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 SHC 438 Result: Appeal Accepted Judgment
JUDGMENT Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J. Mohammed Salik Nukrich and Shakil Sultan (the Appellants) were tried by the Learned Accountability Court IV Karachi, in References No 02/2010 and 03 of 2011, filed by National Accountability Bureau [NAB], Karachi. The Learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated 06.07.2022, convicted and sentenced the Appellants to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten [10] years and pay fine of Rs. 11 million (each convict to pay fine of Rs. 5.5 million); in case of non- payment of fine, they shall suffer R. I [rigorous imprisonment] for six months and fine amount shall be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue, in terms of section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (the Ordinance), with a benefit available under section 382-B CrPC. The Appellants/ Convicts would forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by them and further stand disqualified in terms of Section 15 of the Ordinance for a period of ten years to be reckoned from the date of release after serving out sentence awarded to them and also from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or any Province, they shall not be allowed to obtain any financial facility in the form of loan or advances from any financial institutions controlled by Government for a period of ten years. The Appellants have challenged the conviction and sentences through separate appeals, which are being disposed of through this single judgment. 2. The facts leading to the Appeals against conviction are that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Karachi filed the above References before the Learned Administrative Judge Accountability
---
## Page 2
Court [Karachi] regarding fraudulent transfer of 34.11 acres of Land owned by Pak Ideal Cooperative Housing Society Limited (the Society) by misuse of authority and in violation of Revenue Laws and cheating Public at Large by selling the plots to the public in the name of Shehr e Sultan Housing Society. 3. It is alleged in the Reference No 03/2011 that the Land measuring 34.11 acres in Survey No. 68, 69, 79, 80, 81 and 82 of Deh Safooran belonged to Morio Family to the extent of 04 aana share. Upon death of Morio Khan Dagar, the Land was transferred in the names of his Legal heirs Mst. Maryam, daughter of Morio, Bachal, son of Morio, Mst. Aminat, daughter of Morio, Mst. Fati, daughter of Morio, Mst. Samani, daughter of Morio, Mst. Amina, widow of Morio. The descendants of Morio sold out their 04 Aana share to the Society in the year 1968 through oral statement as per practice at that time. The mutation in favor of the Society was affected in record of rights vide entry No. 145/157 dated 18th November, 1968. The Munshi Sheruddin Lashari while working as Tapedar, Deh Safooran, Malir, caused fake and forged entries in the revenue record of rights, including the fake entry pertaining to Ashraf Muhammadi and further interpolated four new bogus entries in the Foti Khata Badal of Morio Khan to benefit the Appellant Shakil Sultan and intentionally mutated the Land of the Society [Complainant] in favour of Mahpara Shakeel and Shabana Ali. Accused Asadullah Abbasi the then Assistant Mukhtiarkar Malir deliberately failed to check the record of rights and rather relied on interpolated entries of Foti Khata Badal of Morio Khan and Sub-Power of Attorney of a fake General Power of Attorney. He deliberately inserted fake entry No. 213/36 and paved the way of making subsequent entries 126, 127, 134 for the benefit of the Appellant Shakeel Sultan; whereas, the other Appellant Muhammad Salik Nukrich the then Mukhtiarkar Malir Town, deliberately authenticated the Entries No. 213, 36/126 and 213, 36/127 dated 26th May, 1997 and Entry No. 126/134 dated 25th Oct, 1997 and issued Fard copy to newly created Khatedars, viz. Mahpara Shakil, Shabhana Ali and Khalid Masud in respect of said Survey numbers. The accused Muhammad Ashraf the then Survey Superintendent, Karachi Division executed fake and forged documents submitted directly by the Appellant [Shakeel Sultan] showing Sub-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney of fake Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with fake NIC [National Identity Card] and address. The same Application, in legal way, should have been forwarded through Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) to Deputy District Officer (Revenue) and subsequently Survey Superintendent, Karachi requesting demarcation and merger of the two Survey numbers 79 and 82. Then Survey Superintendent was to order his subordinate City Surveyor for Survey merger and demarcation layout plan. The accused in connivance with each other made just paper work to cover this illegal act of demarcation without serving notice to parties. In this demarcation, Tapedar and Mukhtiarkar actively prepared forged documents showing merger of two Survey numbers into other Survey numbers, and necessary correspondence to formalize fraudulent act of demarcation. The Appellant [ Shakeel Sultan] a private person, worked as Builder through fake Irrevocable General Power of Attorney of Muhammad Adel, son of M. Sadiq, dated 5th December, 1994 having fake NIC number and address, became a Sub-Attorney on 27th July 1995 for the above legal heirs of Morio Khan, purchased a land measuring 34.11 acres in papers in the name of his front women, one his wife Mahpara Shakeel and the other his so-called relative Mrs. Shabana Ali by making the Indenture of Lease dated 28th February 1996 on the basis of untraceable entries No. 100-17/213 dated 24th Feb, 1974. He manipulated Foti Khata of Morio Khan and got interpolated Entry No. 213/36 dated 7th May, 1981, manipulated Foti Khata of Mst. Aminat in the Revenue Record of Rights. The Appellant [Shakeel Sultan] on the basis of Entry No 213/36 got the land mutated vide entries No. 213, 36/126 and 213, 36/127 dated 26th May, 1997 whereas this land was purchased by the Society from the same Family Members (descendants of Morio Khan) on 18th November 1968 and on 28th September 1968. As per the investigation, above Shakeel Sultan in connivance with the accused Revenue Officials got the record tampered, forged, interpolated and got the privately owned Land
---
## Page 3
measuring 34-11 acres, transferred, illegally and unlawfully, in the names of his wife Mahpara Shakeel and Shabana Ali. 4. It is alleged in Reference No. 02 of year 2010 that Abdul Razak Gatta, Secretary of the Society filed complaint with NAB against the Appellant [Shakeel Sultan] regarding fraudulent transfer of the Society land in Deh Safooran and launching of a housing project thereon in the name and style of Shehr-e-Sultan and thereby cheated public at large. Investigation was authorized by the Director General NAB Sindh Karachi against Shakeel Sultan and others for their involvement in commission of scheduled offence of corruption and corrupt practices. It transpired during investigation that from year 1996 to 2006, M/s ESS ESS Construction Builders and Developers after obtaining conditional approval of layout plan dated January 01, 1996 from Malir Cantonment Board in the name of Red Lines Construction for booking of house units in Project "Shehr-e-Sultan". For this purpose, the Convict Shakeel Sultan generated two construction companies one "Red Lines Construction" for obtaining approval of layout plan from Malir Cantonment Board and another "ESS ESS Construction Builders and Developers" for booking of housing project "Shehr-e-Sultan". The project was launched on the land owned by the Society since 1968. The Secretary of the Society filed an application to Malir Cantonment Board for cancellation of layout plan. The Malir Cantonment Board, after verification of title of the Society from Deputy Commissioner East and Mukhtiarkar Revenue Malir, cancelled layout plan. The Convict Shakeel Sultan filed Constitution Petition No D-1451/2005 before this Court, which was dismissed on September 04, 2007 in favour of Malir Cantonment Board. In all 17 affectees/claimants filed their claims who provided the receipts of booking issued by M/s ESS ESS Construction Builders and Developers amounting to Rs. 10.949 million. That the accused Shakeel Sultan launched a housing project in the name and style of Shehr-e-Sultan on the land of the Society in Survey No. 68, 69, 80 & 81 Deh Safooran, the accused has committed an offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under Section 9(a) and punishable under Section 10 of the ordinance. 5. Initially both the References proceeded separately, after supplying of documents in Reference No. 2/2010, the charge against Shakeel Sultan was framed on 14.07.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty, while the charge in Reference No. 03/2011 was framed on 28.09.2012 against accused Munshi Sherudin Lashari, Asadullah Abbasi, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Salik Nukrich and Shakeel Sultan. After framing of charge in Reference No. 03/2011, the statements of two witnesses were recorded. Then an application under section 235 and 239 CrPC was filed before Learned Trial Court in Reference No. 03/2011 for consolidation of Reference No 02/2010 with Reference No. 03/2011, which was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2015. The accused Asadullah Abbasi, Muhammad Salik Nukrich, Muhammad Ashraf Bhutto and Shakeel Sultan in both references were indicted for a consolidated charge on 02.02.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial accused Munshi Sheruddin absconded away, he was proceeded under section 512 CrPC, Asadullah Abbasi passed away, therefore proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 16.09.2019. 6. To prove the Charge, Prosecution examined in all 26 Witnesses, namely, PW-1 Abdul Razaq, the Complainant of the case. He produced Approval letter, Copy of fake entries No. 213 dated 24.02.1974 and subsequent fake entry No. 213/36 dated 09.05.1981 order of Land Utilization Department and other documents to show that the land was owned by Society and fraudulently transferred in the names of Mahpara Shakil, Shabana Ali, PW - 2 Muhammad Bachal Supervising Tapedar produced record of rights (examined in the earlier round, he passed away after consolidated charge), PW - 2 Muhammad Achar then Mukhtiarkar Malir, PW- 3 Ganhwar Ali Laghari produced record, PW-4 Abdul Hakeem, PW-5 Rafiq Qureshi, PW- 6 Muhammad Amir Sabbir, PW-7 Muhammad Younus NADRA Officer, PW-8 Muhammad Ishaq produced relevant entries under dispute, PW-9 Muhammad Hassan, PW-10 Yousuf Mirza, PW-11 Abdul Aleem, PW-12 Muhammad Saleem, PW-13 Anwar Ali, PW-14 Muhammad Shafiq, PW-15 Abdul Hadi, PW-16 Shahid Mehmood, PW-17 Kishwar
---
## Page 4
Jahan, PW-18 Syed Muhammad Zia Abbas, PW-19 Muhammad Khalid Arshad Lari, PW-20 Shabana Ali, PW-21 Shazia Bano, PW-22 Nadeem Mukhtar, PW-23 Syeda Rukhsana Hanif, PW-24 Mst. Khalida Noor and PW-25 Syed Iftikhar Ahmed, the Court also examined CW-1 Abdul Hadi, CW-2 Syed Muhammad Rizwanullah, CW-3 Syed Muhammad Rizwanullah, CW-4 Muhammad Adeel Khan, CW-5 Muhammad Adeel Khan as court witnesses. The prosecution side was closed by the Learned Special Prosecutor NAB. 7. The statements under section 342 Cr.P.C of the Appellants/Convicts were recorded, wherein they denied the prosecution allegation and prayed for justice. Appellant/Convict Shakeel Sultan examined eight witnesses in defence, while Appellant/ convict Muhammad Salik Nukrich did not examine any witness in defence. Both the Appellants /Convicts did not examine themselves on oath. 8. The defence witnesses of the Appellant Shakeel Sultan were examined as DW-1 Suhail Memon, DW-2 Wazir Chand Oad, DW-3 Asma Batool, DW-4 Ajaz-ul-Hassan Khan, DW-5 Muhammad Anwar, DW-6 Salman Farsi, DW-7 Fazal Hussain, DW-8 Asif Zaman, thereafter the defence closed its side for defence. 9. Learned Trial Court after hearing Special Prosecutor for NAB, Learned Defence Counsels convicted and sentenced the Appellants as aforementioned hence these accountability appeals. 10. Mr. Nazar Hussain Leghari, learned Counsel for the Appellant Muhammad Salik Nukrich, contended that allegation against his client was that he misused the authority by attesting the further entries in respect of original entry No 213/ 36 which appeared to be bogus. He contended that the NAB filed this reference on the complaint of the Society claiming ownership over the disputed land. The title of the land in question is disputed and Civil Suits between the parties are pending adjudication before this Court. He argued that the accusation of the misuse of authority is based upon the Order of the Assistant Commissioner Malir, through which the disputed entries were directed to be cancelled, but the said Order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner -II, Karachi, which was maintained by the Member Land Utilization of Board of Revenue, with the result, the Entries kept by the above Appellant [Mohammed Salik] were restored. He argued that Mst. Maryam and Mst. Fatima, the original Owners of the Land appeared before the Investigation Officer [ IO ] and recorded their statements undersection 161 of Cr. PC, denying the sale of land to the Society and to the wife of accused Shakeel Sultan [the Appellant]. He argued that the Appellant [Muhammad Salik Nukrich] kept entry on the basis of registered document [SALE DEED] in the record of rights in accordance with law for which he was bound to do so under Section 42 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act [1967], which did not constitute an offence of corruption or corrupt practices; argued that there was no evidence of misuse of the authority and forgery in the record against the said Appellant - Mohammed Salik Nukrich, who acted in good faith while maintaining the record of rights by implementing the mandatory provisions of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, and his prosecution was barred under Section 181 whereof; argued that there was dispute between the Private Parties over the Title of the Land in question and no loss was caused to the Public Exchequer. Prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment as prosecution failed to prove charge against Muhammad Salik Nukrich beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Mr. Ahmed Ali Hussain, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Shakeel Sultan contended that the allegation against his client was that he in connivance with the officials of Revenue Department, fraudulently transferred 34.11 acres of the Land bearing survey numbers 68, 69, 79, 80, and 81 of Deh Safooran Tapo Songal District Malir Karachi belonging to the Society, in the names of his Wife Mahpara Shakeel and relative Shabana Ali. He argued that the said Appellant Shakeel Sultan had better title in the Properties in the shape of registered Sale Deed and such document is more authentic and valid than a revenue entry based upon oral statement [which is the Case of the Complainant Society]; argued that the entries in favor of Shakeel Sultan were cancelled by the
---
## Page 5
Assistant Commissioner Revenue, but, the said Order was set aside in Appeal by the Additional Commissioner II Karachi and maintained by the Member Board of Revenue [as stated above], as such the status of record of rights presently existed in favor of Shakeel Sultan as the disputed entries No 213, 36/126 and 213, 36/127 have been restored and in absence of any further challenge to the Orders of the Revenue Authorities by the Society, the entries attained finality. Stated that the Parties were under litigation in respect of the Property and Respondent NAB had no jurisdiction to intervene into such matters as no offences of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under Section 9 of the Ordinance has been committed. The NAB cannot indulge into deciding the question of title which is within the jurisdiction and domain of the competent Court of law; contended that the IO recorded the statements of the Original Owners Mariam and Fatima who denied the sale of land to the Society and Mahpara Shakeel and Shabana Ali the alleged front women of convict Shakeel Sultan, but both of them were not produced before the Trial Court, which prima facie gives an inference that they would not support the prosecution case. That all the Witnesses including the Complainant Abdul Razak and IO while recording their evidence before the Trial Court have conceded that the Order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and entries in favor of the family of convict Shakeel Sultan stand restored. The learned Trial Court failed to make appraisal of the evidence in true perspective and recorded finding of the guilt of the convict in violation of the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court for the appraisal of the evidence. Prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and for acquittal of the Appellants/ Convicts. 12. Mr. Afzal Ahmed, the learned Special Prosecutor NAB, assisted by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, Dr. Raja Mohammed Ali, contended that the Appellant Shakeel Sultan in collusion, connivance and collaboration with the officials of Revenue Department namely, the Appellant Muhammad Salik Nukrich [Mukhtiarkar], Deceased Accused Assistant Mukhtiarkar Asadullah Abbasi and absconding Accused Survey Superintendent Muhammad Ashraf Bhutto and Tapedar Munshi Sheruddin Lashari launched a Housing Project- Shahr-e-Sultan on the Land of the Society, in Survey No. 68, 69, 80 & 81 in Deh Safooran Tapo Songal District Malir Karachi and illegally got transferred the Land measuring 34-11 acres of the Society in the name of his wife Mahapara Shakeel and relative Mst. Shabana Ali and cheated public at large and received Rs.10.949 million from 17 affectees / claimants on the basis of forged/fake documents. Argued that the criminal proceedings are not barred if the civil proceedings in respect of same subject matter were pending in the court of law. Contended that the Convict/Appellant Muhammad Salik Nukhrich has violated Section 14-B of Sindh Village Account Manual, while attesting the subsequent entries of disputed Entry, viz. 213/36, which was marked with red ink; that Prosecution has established its case through oral and documentary evidence against the above Convicts Shakeel Sultan and Muhammad Salik Nukrich, therefore, they were correctly convicted by the Learned Accountability Court. Prayed to maintain the impugned Judgment. 13. We have heard Learned Counsel for Parties, perused the material available on record and reappraised the evidence with their able assistance. 14. Before appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, it would be pertinent to mention that since the filing of instant References, the Convicts / Appellants raised a plea that the Reference filed by the NAB was not maintainable as NAB lacked jurisdiction to investigate the issue of immoveable property between the Private Parties, who were seeking adjudication of their rights as to the title before the competent Court of law. The matter went to the Honourable Supreme Court, which through its Order passed in Civil Petition No 651 - K of 2017, directed the Learned Trial Court to deal with the issues agitated by the Appellants in accordance with law. For the sake of convenience the Order is reproduced below:
---
## Page 6
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reference has been filed with regard to the property in question. Admittedly, the property in question is a private property. He further contends that there is a dispute of title to the property between the petitioner and the complainant society and such dispute is pending in the learned High Court of Sindh at Karachi in its civil jurisdiction. It is also added by the learned counsel that the petitioner after developing the said property has further transferred the rights in the said property only to 17 others persons by receiving booking charges. In the above context, it is his case that no case under Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance has been made out and this aspect of the matter has been agitated by the petitioner before the Accountability Court as well as before the learned High Court but without considering all aspects of the matter, his contentions have been brushed aside. 2. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently disputes the claim of the petitioner as to the title of the property. 3. However, the learned Special Prosecutor, NAB informs us that the trial is almost completed and only the statement of the I.O remains to be recorded. 4. In the above backdrop, with the consent of the parties, this Civil petition is disposed of in the terms that the Accountability Court seized of the matter shall decide all the legal and factual objections raised by the petitioner including the question of its jurisdiction as well as whether any offence at all is made out, which can or should be tried by the learned Accountability Court. Such objections, if raised, will be decided by the learned Accountability Court being uninfluenced by any observation earlier made by the leaned Accountability Court or the learned High Court by way of the impugned judgment." 15. The Learned Trial Court while dealing with the questions framed by the Honourable Apex Court, set the controversy of Reference No. 02 of 2010 at rest by observing that the Standard Operative Procedure (SOP) of NAB covers the offence of Cheating Public at Large when the number of affectees or defrauded persons exceed 50 and amount involved is above one hundred million; since in the instant Reference the number of affectees was 17 out of which only 10 were produced to record evidence and amount involved was about 11 million, therefore, no scheduled offence of cheating Public at large was made out from the facts of Reference/case. The affectees were left at liberty to avail the civil as well as ordinary criminal remedy provided by the law. 16. The Learned Trial Court acquitted the Appellant Shakeel Sultan of the charge in Reference No 02 of 2010, and no Appeal is preferred by the Respondent NAB, as such the acquittal of Shakeel Sultan in the above Reference attained finality. 17. The Appellants since have been convicted and sentenced in Reference No. 03 of 2011, therefore, relevant evidence is considered [relating to the above Reference]. The Prosecution alleged that accused / Convict Shakeel Sultan in collusion and connivance with Revenue Officials including accused / convict Mukhtiarkar Muhammad Salik Nukrich, deceased accused Assistant Mukhtiarkar Asadullah Abbasi and absconding accused Survey Superintendent Muhammad Ashraf Bhutto and Tapedar Munshi Sheruddin Lashari manipulated revenue record in respect of Survey Number. 68, 69, 80 & 81 in Deh Safooran Tapo Songal District Malir Karachi and illegally got transferred the land measuring 34-11 acres of the Society in the name of Maha Para Shakeel (wife of convict Shakeel Sultan), Mst. Shabana Ali, thus committed an offence of misuse of authority and rendered unlawful gains to the convict Shakil Sultan, caused loss to a Co-Operative Society which in terms of Section 65 - B of the Cooperative Societies Act is a loss caused to Public Exchequer. Had the accused officials acted diligently this loss could have been prevented. The criminal negligence of accused officials advanced the cause of convict / accused Shkeel Sultan to cheat public at large who received Rs 10.949 million from 17 affectees/claimants based on forged/fake documents. 18. To establish the charge of misuse of authority the prosecution examined 16 witnesses including IO, but for the purposes of determination of culpability and criminal liability of the accused persons
---
## Page 7
the evidence of Six witnesses namely PW -1 Abdul Razak who lodged complaint before NAB regarding fraud, PW-2 Mohammed Bachal the then supervising Tapedar (Mohammed Bchal since died his evidence was not recorded after consolidated charge, therefore, his evidence would be considered as the same was recorded in presence of both the convicts) , PW-2 Mohammed Achar [the PW - 2 number so repeats as the witness Mohammed Bachal was recorded during first round of trial, when consolidated charge was not framed] then Mukhtiarkar Malir, PW-3 Ganhwar Ali then Assistant Commissioner Revenue Malir, PW- 8 Mohammed Ishaq and PW -15 Abdul Hadi Investigation Officer was relevant and would be considered for reappraisal. The remaining witnesses deposed about the procedure for making revenue record and process of survey and demarcation thus of no material significance for determination of criminal liability relating to misuse of authority. The Witnesses numbers 16 to 25 relate to the Reference No. 02 of 2010 regarding cheating public at large and since that Reference has been…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.