IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2010 
(Against the order dated 26.01.2009 passed by 
the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Criminal 
Original No.73 of 2008)  
 
 
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Nadeem H. Shaikh and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Syed Hamid Ali Shah, ASC 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR  
 
For Respondent Nos. 
5,6,9,14,16: 
Mr. Tanvir-ul-Islam, ASC 
 
For Respondent Nos.18 & 19 Mr. Naeem Bukhari, ASC 
 
For Respondent No.3 
Mr. Nayab Gardezi, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
27.10.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Impugned herein is 
order dated 21.1.2009, passed in Criminal Original No.73 of 2008 
titled as  Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan Vs. Nadeem H. 
Sheikh & 32 others by the then Islamabad High Court to draw up 
proceedings against two from amongst a large array of the respondents 
under section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Exoneration 
of majority of the respondents was assailed through leave of the Court 
granted vide order passed as far back as on 14.12.2010. It is in this 
backdrop that despite repeated directions and opportunities generously 
granted by the Court from time to time, the appellant persisted in its 
failure to provide the addresses of the respondents so as to bring the 
issue, in the fullness of time, to its logical end, sooner rather than 
later; last order being on 25.02.2020 that runs as follows: 
“Ibrar Saeed, Law Officer appearing on behalf 
of the appellant requests for four weeks’ time. 
Time as requested is granted, but with a 
Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2010 
 
2
caution that in case the appellant still fails to 
comply, the appeal shall stand dismissed. The 
notice stands discharged.” 
 
There is no improvement in the state of affairs even today; the learned 
counsel for the appellant, when confronted with the non-compliance, 
stated that he had furnished requisite information to the Advocate-on-
Record, however, the latter when summoned, took a different plea, 
diametrically inconsistent with the position taken by the former and 
instead persuaded the Court for substitute service, a request that 
cannot be acceded to without disregard to the order earlier passed by 
this Court.  
 
Law assists the vigilant even in causes most valid and justiciable. 
Similarly, fixation of cases before Benches entails public expense and 
time, that must not be incurred more than once in the absence of a 
reason most genuine and compelling. Delay caused by the appellant in 
doing the needful is exasperating. We do not feel persuaded to allow 
this long drawn inaptitude to further encumber pendency of the Court. 
Dismissed.  
  
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
27th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
