Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 YLR 1075
Court / Jurisdiction: Balochistan High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-01-24
Parties: Imran Taj Gichki vs The State
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Balochistan High Court on 2025-01-24, officially reported as 2025 YLR 1075. In this matter between Imran Taj Gichki and The State, 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 2025 YLR 1075
Court Name: Balochistan High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Ejaz Swati, Sardar Ahmad Haleemi Title: Imran Taj Gichki vs The State Case No.: Criminal Ehtesab Appeals Nos. 17, 27 and 28 of 2022 Date of Judgment:2025-01-24 Reported As: 2025 YLR 1075 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT SARDAR AHMAD HALEEMI, J. Since, the above appeals are arising out of the same and common impugned judgment dated 17-05-2022, therefore, are being decided through this common judgment. The Criminal Ehtesab Appeal No. 17 of 2022 is directed against the judgment dated 17.05.2022 (hereinafter the "impugned Judgment") passed by learned Accountability Court-III, Judge Balochistan, Quetta, (hereinafter the "trial Court") in Reference No.04/2016, whereby the appellant Imran Taj Gichki was convicted and sentenced in the following manner: "Under section 9(v) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and sentenced to suffer R.I for S years and fine of Rs.80,000,000/- (Eight Crore). The amount of fine if not paid shall be recovered from the moveable and immoveable property of the accused, as per provision of section 33(E) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The property of accused i.e. Flat A-1(1022 sq.ft) Spinzar Apartment Tehsll Murree, District Rawalpindi, House No.29-E, Phase V(600 sq yard) Baharia Town Islamabad and Gold and Currency mentioned in investigation report is hereby confiscated in favour of state. Benefit of section 382(B) Cr.P.C. is extended to accused. Accused is disqualified for 10 years to hold any public office or contest election and he is also not allowed to apply for or allow any financial facility inform of loan or advance from any Bank or financial institution for a period of 10 years as provided under section 15 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to be reckoned from the date of completion of his sentence. The prosecution failed to prove charge against Mst. Shahana Imran as such she is hereby acquitted of the charge. She was on bail, her bail bonds stands (sic) discharge (sic) of lapses of
---
## Page 2
appeal period. The Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan is pleased to held (sic) in Criminal Ahtesab (sic) Appeal No. 9/2020, Manawar Hussain v. State and Criminal Ahtesab (sic) Appeal No.03 of 2020 Shiekh (sic) Rahmat Khan v. State, that the conviction awarded in absensia (sic) under section 31(A) of the Ordinance is in violation of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as such the case/reference to the extent of absconding accused Ghazala Jabeen and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf be kept informant till their arrest." Through Criminal Ehtesab Appeals Nos.27 and 28 of 2022, the State/NAB has challenged the impugned judgment dated 17-05- 2022 for enhancement of sentence of the appellant Imran Taj Gichki and acquittal of respondent Shahana Imran, respectively. 2. Succinct facts of the instant case are that NAB Balochistan, Quetta received a complaint against accused Imran Taj Gichki, Ex-Secretary of Chief Minister Balochistan, Quetta with the allegation of accumulation of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Initially, an inquiry was authorized, which was upgraded into an investigation on 08.07.2012. It revealed in the investigation that the appellant Imran Taj Gichki Ex-Secretary Chief Minister Balochistan, Quetta accumulated huge valuable properties in Islamabad and Rawalpindi in the name of his benamidars, and the other accused persons to save his crime proceeds collected through corruption and corrupt practices, the co-accused Ghazala Jabeen and Mst. Shahana Imran had no source of income and the properties purchased by the appellant in their names as benamidars; further, alleged that the appellant Imran Taj Gichki himself, as well as his family, made several foreign visits during the years 2009 to 2014 and 2015, the detail of properties and liabilities of the appellant is given in para No.01 of the Final Investigation Report; further alleged that the appellant while 'holding the public office had caused loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.184,09,136/- by means of corruption and corrupt practices. On the said allegations, NAB Reference No. 04 of 2016 was filed against accused Imran Taj Gichki, Shahana Imran, and others and the trial commenced. 3. On 28-09-2017, charge was framed against the accused/appellant Imran Taj Gichki and acquitted respondent Shahana Imran under section 9(a), (v) read with section 10 of NAB Ordinance, 1999, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, whereas accused Ghazala Jabeen and Muhammad Ashraf were shown as absconders and accused Jameel Ahmed became approver. 4. To prove the charge, the prosecution produced PW-1 Muhammad Mukhtar Patwari, who produced the revenue documents as Art-P/1 to Art-P/2 through seizure memo Ex.P-A, PW-2 Abid Hussain Businessm an, produced the documents as Art-P/3 to Art-P/5 through seizure memo Ex.P/2-A, PW-3 Muhammad Aqeel Khan, Businessman, produced the documents as Art-P/6 to Art- P/9 through seizure memo Ex.P/3-A, PW-4 Abdul Sattar Khan, Farmer, produced the documents as Art-P/10 to Art-P/17 through seizure memo Ex.P/4- A, PW-5 Zakir Khan, Assistant, NAB Balochistan, Quetta, produced the documents as Art-P/18 to Art-P/32 through seizure memo Ex.P/5-A, PW-6 Sarfaraz Ali, produced an affidavit as Art-P/32 through seizure memo Ex.P/6-A, PW-7 Ghulam Sabir, Junior Clerk, NAB Balochistan, produced the documents as Art-P/33 to Art-P/50 through seizure memo Ex.P/7-A, PW-8 Ali Asghar, Businessman, produced the documents as Art-P/51 through seizure memo Ex.P/8-A, PW-9 Muhammad Atif Awan, Manager Bank Islami Peshawar Cantt: produced the documents pertaining to accounts of Ghazala Jabeen as Art-P/52 to Art-P/200 through seizure memo Ex.P/9-A, PW-10 Hidayatullah, Patwari Khuzdar, produced the revenue documents as Art-P/201 to Art-P/208 through seizure memo Ex.P/10-A, PW-11 Sahibzada Maseeh Ullah, Clerk NAB Office, Islamabad, produced the documents as Art-P/209 to Art-P/210 through seizure memo Ex.P/11-A, PW-12 Asad ul Ghafoor, Private employee Rawalpindi, produced the documents as Art-P/211 to Art-P/214 through seizure memo Ex.P/12-A, PW-13 Jameel Ahmed, Businessm an, PW-14 Muhammad Nisaar, Senior Auditor, AGPR Rawalpindi, produced the document
---
## Page 3
as Art-P/215 through seizure memo Ex. P/14-A , PW-15 Muhammad Hanif, Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta, produced the statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. as Ex.P/15-A to Ex.P/15-C, PW-16 Zulfiqar, Branch Manager, MCB-Gujrat, produced the documents as Art-P/216 to Art-P/233 through seizure memo Ex.P/15-A, PW-17 Abdul Nasir, Accounts Officer, AG Office, Quetta, produced the document as Art-P/234 through seizure memo Ex.P/17-A, ,PW-18 Shahid Ali, Patwari, Turbat, produced the revenue record/extract as Art-P/235 to Art-P/247 through seizure memo Ex.P/18-A, PW-19 Idrees Ahmed, Rt: Operation Manager, KASB Bank, Quetta, produced the documents as Art-P/248 to Art-P/287 through seizure memo Ex.P/19-A, PW-20 Ubaid Ullah, Businessman, PW-21 Muhammad Rafique, Driver, PW-22 Muhammad Asif, Assistant Director, NAB, produced the documents as Art-P/288 to Art-P/318 through seizure memo Ex.P/22-A, PW-23 Idrees Ahmed, Cook Balochistan House, Islamabad, PW24 Haji Taimoor Shah, Businessman, PW-25 Nadeem Subhani, GM Record, DHA, Islamabad, produced the document as Art-P/319 through seizure memo Ex.P/25-A, PW-26 Shakeel Ahmed, Businessm an, PW-27 Sharafat Islam, Civil Engineer, Quetta, PW-28 Malik Shah, Businessm an, PW-29 Aftab Javed, Design Engineer, WP-30 Muhammad Umar Hayat, Investigating Officer, NAB Balochistan, produced the Authority Letter as Ex.P/30-A, final investigating report Ex.P/30-B and Reference Ex.P/30-C. 5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant and acquitted accused Shahana- Imran were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them. The appellant recorded his statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, but acquitted respondent Shahana Imran did not record her statement on oath, nor produced any evidence in her defence. However, the appellant produced documentary evidence in his defence. 6. At the conclusion of evidence, the trial Court heard the arguments of the parties and convicted and sentenced the appellant Imran Taj Gichki, whereas acquitted respondent Shahana Imran vide impugned judgment dated 17-05-2022, hence these Criminal Ehtesab Appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Ehtesab Appeal No. 17 of 2022 inter-alia contended that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in tow in its true perspective, thus the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of the law; that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove the allegation of corruption of appellant in any Government department; that the appellant belongs to a noble family had owned/inhabited agriculture lands in Gwadar and other districts of the province, wherefrom, he had received handsome amount and purchased certain properties, which were on his name or on the name of his wife Shahana Imran; that the prosecution has failed to establish the connection of the appellant with the absconding accused regarding the house in Bahria Town; that the trial Court on one hand disbelieved the prosecution evidence to the extent of acquitted accused Shahana Imran, but on the other hand connected the house in Bahria Town with the appellant without any tangible evidence; that apart from the above, the appellant prior to his arrest had also filed a constitution petition in the Islamabad High Court with regard to his harassment by the NAB authorities, as such, keeping in view the litigation, circumstances and events, the statement of approver was required independent corroboration, which is lacking in the instant case; that even otherwise the statement of the approver alone cannot be believed and conviction without independent corroboration, the statement always remains doubtful and not worthy of the reliance, because the approver is the person, who gains the benefit at one stage and later on appeared against his beneficiary; that as per the statement of approver, he made the draft of NBP and thereafter paid the amount to the previous owner, as such, the prosecution was under obligation to have collected the evidence in this regard and produced the same in the competent court of law, but after framing of the charge, the powers under section 540, Cr.P.C. can be exercised, but no such effort was made for brining on record the evidence with regard to payment of transfer of Rs.1,900,000/- in the account of approver by the appellant, which was delivered/paid in favour of
---
## Page 4
the previous owner i.e. Raja Mehmood; further the trial Court while disbelieving the prosecution evidence to the extent of properties at S. Nos.3, 5 and 22 observed that the best evidence in the shape of previous owners had been withheld by the prosecution, whose name appeared at S. No.27 of the list of witnesses, but was not produced and contrary to that convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of the Benamidar of the property, which was recorded in favour of approver Jameel Ahmed; that despite of non-availability of any transaction in the account of PW-13 and besides contradictions in his statement, same was liable to be rejected in toto, but discarded the same to the extent of other transactions and believed to the extent of alleged transaction, which is unwarranted under the law; that no conviction could be made basis on the basis of recovery of gold ornaments and currency (Foreign and Pakistani) from the house in Phase-V Bahria Town, and the revenue extract shows the ownership of said house with absconding accused Ghazala Jabeen; that as per settled principles of law, the appellant have not confronted the material in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and violated the mandatory provision of law; that the contradictions emerged in the statements of PWs-8, 22 and 30 with regard to description of the gold ornaments were overlooked by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment; that there are other several illegalities and irregularities on the basis whereof the impugned judgment is not sustainable to the extent of conviction of the appellant Imran Taj Gichki, hence is liable to be set aside to such extent. 8. Whereas, learned counsel for acquitted respondent No.1 in Criminal Ehtesab Acquittal Appeal No. 28 of 2022 contended that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment to the extent of respondent No.1 after appreciating the evidence and material on record; that after gaining acquittal, the double presumption of innocence lies in favor of respondent No.1 and strong exceptional evidence is required to reverse the findings; that the prosecution has failed to justify and prove, the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, as such, respondent No.1 was rightly acquitted of the charge and lastly supported the impugned judgment to her extent. 9. Conversely, the Special Prosecutor contends that the trial court's judgment is flawed and should be overturned. Despite successfully proving the case beyond doubt, particularly regarding the properties (Flat No.01, Spinzar Market, House No. 29-E Phase V Bahria Town, Islamabad), and assets (gold ornaments, local and foreign currency totaling Rs.12,135,724/-), but the trial Court acquitted respondent No.1 without cogent reason. Special Prosecutor argues that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate key evidence (Art.P/1 to Art.P/319), which directly implicated respondent No. 1 in the crime. Furthermore, Imran Taj Gichki purchased properties in the name of his mother and brother-in-law with the active collaboration of co-accused Shahana Imran, which fact was proved through credible evidence, but the trial Court has not appreciated the material available on record. Besides, the trial Court has taken a lenient view without observing any mitigating circumstances, as such, the conviction and sentence is liable to be enhanced; even otherwise, the accusation against respondent No.1 Shahana Imran is proven, but the trial Court has considered the minor discrepancies appeared in the testimony of witnesses, which do not create any doubt, thus, the findings to such extent are required to be reversed and respondent No.1 Shahana Imran be convicted accordingly. 10. We have heard the valuable arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 11. Perusal of record reveals that NAB, Balochistan filed Reference No.04/2016 against the appellant and others with the allegation that the appellant being a holder of the public office (Ex-Secretary to Chief Minister, Balochistan) accumulated/amassed huge 10 moveable and immovable properties from illegitimate source of income, which was purchased in the name of his wife Mst. Shahana Imran (acquitted respondent in connected Criminal Ehtesab Acquittal Appeal No.28 of 2022) and accused Ghazala Jabeen and Muhammad Ashraf as Benamidars; further alleged that
---
## Page 5
the appellant made 40 foreign visits from 2009-2014, thus, the appellant in connivance with the accused persons' accumulated assets to the tune of Rs.184,609, 136/- and committed offence under Section 9(a)(v) read with Section 10 of NAO, 1999. The prosecution case hinges upon the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C of PW-13 Jamil Ahmed (approver) recorded by PW-l5 Muhammad Hanif, Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta who tendered the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C and certificate as Ex.P/15-B and Ex.P/15-C. In his cross- examination, he replied as under: 12. Likewise, PW-13 Jamil Ahmed/approver deposed that his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, wherein, he told him that he worked in a private medical company; Imran Taj and Taj Muhammad are his brothers-in-law; the appellant was P.S to Chief Minister, Balochistan who purchased Flat No.A-1, Spinzar Apartments, New Iqbal Villas, Bank Road, Marri, District Rawalpindi in sale consideration of Rs.4,100,000/- from Raja Muhammad Aslam; Imran Taj Gichki deposited Rs.1,900,000/- in his account and paid the remaining amount in cash. He purchased 15 Marla land in Bani Gala, Islamabad from Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf in sale consideration of Rs.3,100,000/- and the amount of Rs.25,55,000/- was paid through cheque by Ghazala Jabeen account in his bank account; he had 15 Marla land in Bani Gala and 35 Marla in the name of late Mehmooda Nasreen and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf; an agreement for the construction of the house on the land was executed between late Mehmooda Nasreen and Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf. According to the terms of the said agreement, Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf had to construct the house and after the sale, they would get their shares; Mr. Imran Gichki and Muhammad Ashraf appointed him as supervisor. The cost of construction was paid by Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf, Imran Gichki, Shahana Imran, and Ghazala Jabeen; he sold out the house to Saifullah Abro in sale consideration of Rs.37 Million and Saifullah Abro paid Rs.10 million to Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf and the remaining amount is payable. The witness in his cross-examination replied as under: 13. In this connection, PW-1 Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmed, Pathwari, Islamabad, deposed that on 25- 08-2015, he went to NAB office Islamabad and appeared before the Investigating Officer Muhammad Umar Hayat; he handed over two attested copies of Mutation Entries bearing Nos.978 and 979, as Art.P/1 and Art.P/2, which shows the ownership of late Mehmood Nasreen and Jamil Ahmed, respectively. 14. The testimony of approver i.e. PW-13 Jamil Ahmed, reflects that he remained in NAB custody for 33/34 days, and the prosecution has failed to furnish the details that how many times the accused/approver was produced before the concerned Court for obtaining his remand. The statement of approver must be voluntary and free from any coercion and its evidentiary value is contingent on independent corroboration which implicates the accused in the crime. The provision of Article 16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO, 1984) evaluates the testimony of a compliance (sic) or approver. The role of prudence observe and ensure that such testimony is corroborated in materials particular to the substantial prosecution case and directly implicates the accused, but the prosecution's evidence is lacking to substantiate the accusations against the appellant, as such, the testimony of an approver cannot be relied upon in isolation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of "Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shafi Muhammadi, Advocate and 3 others" (1994 SCMR 932), wherein it is held as under: Islamabad had harassed the witness to give statement against the appellant, and in this context, the approver filed a Constitution Petition before Islamabad High Court, wherein, narrated all the facts. PW-15 Muhammad Hanif, Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta has not adhered to the provision of section 364 read with section 164, Cr.P.C, as such, on this score alone the statement of approver is not relied upon. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of "Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others" (2016 SCMR 274), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated the requirements of section 364 and section 164, Cr.P.C. The operative, part is reproduced as under:
---
## Page 6
"12. An accomplice who takes part in the commission of the offence for which his co-accused is charged with falls within the category of a wicked person in terms of the above verse of the Holy Qur'an and, therefore, before acting upon his testimony, the truthfulness of it is to be verified by corroborative pieces of evidence on material particulars". 15. Moreover, the interplay with Article 43 of QSO, 1984 allows confessional statement as circumstantial evidence, but keeping in view the principle of safe administration of justice, it was the bounded duty of concerned Judicial Magistrate to observe the mandatory and settled procedure and nrecautions for recording the judicial confession of an approver. It is evident from the statement of PW-13 Jameel Ahmed that NAB, Islamabad had harassed the witness to give statement against the appellant, and in this context, the approver filed a Constitution Petition before Islamabad High Court, wherein, narrated all the facts. PW-15 Muhammad Hanif, Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta has not adhered to the provision of section 364 read with section 164, Cr.P.C, as such, on this score alone the statement of approver is not relied upon. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of "Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others" (2016 SCMR 274), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated the requirements of section 364 and section 164, Cr.P.C. The operative, part is reproduced as under: ".........15. Keeping in view the High Court Rules, laying down a binding procedure for taking required precautions and observing the requirements of the provision of section 364 read with section 164, Cr. P. C. by now it has become a trite law that before recording confession and that too in crimes entailing capital punishment, the Recording Magistrate has to essentially observe all these mandatory precautions and he is to be provided full assurance that in case he is not guilty or is not making a confession voluntarily than in that case, he would not be to the police. Thereafter, sufficient time for reflection is to be given after the first warning is administered. At the expiry of police officials whether in uniform or otherwise, including Naib Court attached to the Court must be kept outside the Court and beyond the view accused person is willing to confess, then all required questions formulated by the High Court Rules should be put to him and the answers given, be recorded in the words spoken by him. The statement of accused be recorded by the Magistrate with his own hand and in case there is a genuine compelling reason then, a special note is to be given that the same was dictated to a responsible official of the Court like Stenographer or Reader and oath shall also be administered to such version, the accused stated and dictated by the Magistrate. In case, the accused is illiterate, the confession he makes, if recorded in another read-over and explained to him in the language, the accused fully understands and thereafter a certificate, as required under section 364, Cr.P.C. with regard w these proceedings be given by the Magistrate under his seal and signatures and the accused shall be sent to jail on judicial remand and during this process at no occasion he shall be handed over to any police official/officer whether he is Naib Court wearing Police uniform, or any other police official/officer, because such careless dispensation would considerably damage the voluntary nature of the confession, made by the accused. .......16. In the instant case, the Recording Magistrate namely, Ch. Taufiq Ahmed did not observe least precautions, required under the law. He was so careless that the confessions of both the appellants were recorded with grossly violating the law, the same, therefore, has rendered the confession inadmissible which cannot be safely relied upon keeping in view the principle of safe administration of justice." 16. In addition to this, PW-2 Abid Hussain, PW-3 Muhammad Aqeel Khan, and PW-5 Zakir Khan tendered the quotations of Aluminum, Steel Work, and other Sanitary items with regard to the construction of Bani Gala house, but the above witnesses did not identify the appellant nor uttered a single word that they received any payment from the him. PW-4 Abdul Sattar Khan produced the copy of agreements to sell of Bani Gala house executed between his father Abdul Hafeez and
---
## Page 7
Shakeel Ahmed and Abdul Hafeez and Jamil Ahmed as Art.P/10 to Art.P/11 respectively. PW-6 Sarfaraz Ali produced the agreement to sell in respect of Bani Gala house executed between Mst. Mehmooda Nasreen and Saifullah Abro as Art.P/32. Likewise, PW-9 Muhammad Atif Awan produced the account opening form, bank statement, and deposit/credit forms pertaining to accused Ghazala Jabeen as Art.P/54 to Art.P/200. The testimony of afore-mentioned witnesses indicates that the appellant has no nexus with the property/house situated at Bani Gala, Islamabad, and Flat bearing No.A-1, Spinzar Apartments, New Iqbal Villas, Bank Road, Marri, District Rawalpindi. Contrary to that the Bani Gala house is recorded in the name of approver and late Mehmooda Nasreen, which was subsequently sold by Mst. Mehmooda Nasreen to Saifullah Abro vide sale agreement Art.P/32 and the sale proceeds were received by Ch: Muhammad Ashraf, therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any corroborative evidence to connect the appellant with the sale/purchase of above-mentioned properties. 17. In…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.