IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
 
C.M.A. No. 3325/2012 in CRP No. 270/2011 
In Const. P. No. 42 of 2011 a/w Crl.M.A No. 547/2012 
 & Crl. M.A. No. 565/2012 in Crl.Org.P.No. 63 of 2012  
& C.R.P 9/2013 in CMA No.3325/2012  
(Progress report of NAB in OGRA case) 
 
 
For the NAB:  
 
Rana Zahid Mehmood, Additional PG, NAB 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, Deputy PG, NAB 
 
 
 
 
Mirza Irfan Baig, Director (FCIW) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, Deputy Dir. NAB 
 
 
 
 
Col (r)  Shahzad Anwar Bhatti, DG(O) NAB 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood Raza, Addl. DPG, NAB 
 
For FIA: 
 
 
Mr. Muhammd Azam Khan, Director (Law) 
 
For Motorway Police:  
Mr. Ali Akbar, SP( Legal) 
 
 
In Crl. MA No. 547-565/12: Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
 
For Govt. of Punjab:  
Mr. Jawwad Hassan, Addl.AG, Punjab  
 
 
 
 
a/w Rana Shahid Pervaiz (SP) 
 
 
 
 
(CID) Rawalpindi, 
 
For the Petitioner: 
 
Mr. K.K.Agha, PG NAB 
(in C.R.P. 9/2013) 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
:   
31.01.2013 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J:- 
On 25.11.2011 the Supreme Court vide judgment in 
Constitution Petition No. 42/2011 directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to 
probe into a number of matters. These matters were listed in para 57 of our judgment of 
25.11.2011 and are reproduced as under:- 
 
“(5) that the National Accountability Bureau (‘NAB’) shall probe into 
and prepare a report on the following matters:- 
 
 
(a) the serious allegations enumerated in the Constitution 
Petition including those enumerated in paragraph 15 thereof; 
 
(b) the conduct of state functionaries who were engaged in the 
process of selection of the respondent as Chairman, OGRA and 
their possible culpability for mal feasance, non feasance and 
other wrong doing; 
 
(c) the misuse of public office and the involvement of holders of 
public office in corruption or corrupt practices in terms of the 
National Accountability Ordinance; 
 
(6) the Chairman, NAB shall proceed in the matter with the promptness 
and diligence required in the matter; 
CMA 3325/12 in CRP 270/11 
2 
 
(7) the report of NAB shall be submitted in Court within 45 days from 
today; 
 
(8) the matter be placed before us after 45 days for such further orders as 
may be considered appropriate, 
 
The events which followed the above judgment, as appearing from the record and from 
reports submitted by NAB show prima facie, that there may have been interference in 
proceedings before this Court and possible culpability of some persons in terms inter alia of 
Chapters XI and IX, PPC and other statutes relating to Public Justice. This, prima facie, 
undermines the rule of law and the legal imperative of stamping out corruption and corrupt 
practices. It thus, raises a concern which requires serious consideration.  
2. 
On 01.02.2012 i.e. more than 2 months after our judgment and our direction that a 
report be submitted in 45 days, the Chairman NAB authorized an investigation in the 
matter. Our record presently does not show as to why our order directing the filing of a 
report within 45 days, was not compiled with. The Chairman NAB appears to have 
authorized an investigation but the name of any investigation officer (I.O) was not 
indicated. On 28.02.2012 Mr. Ilyas Qamar and Lt. Col (r) Ikramullah were jointly appointed 
for the purpose. On 16.03.2012 the case was transferred to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, 
Investigating Officer (I.O.) Deputy Director NAB who began his investigation and has since 
been pursuing this case.  
3. 
On 09.04.2012, Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan submitted for the Chairman’s approval, 
grounds of arrest and draft warrants for the arrest of Tauqir Sadiq and Mansoor Muzafar 
Ali. The next day i.e. on 10.04.2012 the Director General (SOD) of NAB namely Col. (r) 
Shahzad Anwar Bhatti returned the file to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan with the direction “as 
discussed please prepare grounds of arrest and put up again”. This prima facie appears unusual as 
we have not been able to find any explanation on record for this conduct. According to the 
available record, the grounds for arrest and draft warrants had already been prepared and 
it was after such preparation that the file had been sent to the Director General in the first 
place. Since Col (r) Shahzad Anwar Bhatti is present in Court he shall file his explanation 
for this circumstance which, prima facie, appears unusual and may also be culpable.  
4. 
The next day i.e. on 11.04.2012 Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan again submitted the 
grounds of arrest and draft warrants a second time. 5 days later i.e. on 16.04.2012, the DG 
CMA 3325/12 in CRP 270/11 
3 
(SOD) returned the file yet again directing that it be “put up after examining witnesses/accused 
persons”. This also prima facie seems highly unusual since Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan had 
already examined Mr. Muhammad Yasin, Registrar OGRA, who was petitioner in Const. 
Petition No. 42/2011 and Jawad Jamil an accused in the case. This was done on 02.04.2012 
and their statements had also been incorporated in the case diary. Nevertheless, Mr. Waqas 
Ahmed Khan went on to examine both Tauqir Sadiq and Mansoor Muzaffar on the same 
day i.e. 16.04.2012.  
5. 
The next day i.e. on 17.04.2012 he resubmitted grounds of arrest and draft warrants 
for a third time. The DG (SOD) returned the file to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan yet again 
asking “have we got any bank accounts to be analyzed?”. Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan wrote back 
that all steps have been taken for scrutiny of the bank accounts and other requisite details 
have been taken for the scrutiny of the bank accounts. This time around, the DG (SOD) 
moved the file to the Chairman NAB with the observation dated 18.04.2012 that “we must 
discuss case progress please”. On 19.04.2012 the Chairman NAB received the file and 
approved the arrest warrants and grounds for arrest. However, this approval and the file 
did not get back to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan for another twelve( 12) days. This also prima 
facie appears to be a serious omission. The DG (SOD) shall explain this aspect of the case 
also. It has been noted by Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan that during this period Tauqir Sadiq 
and Mansoor Muzafar accused were frequently visiting NAB Headquarters for 
interrogation. The signed warrants finally got back to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan on 
02.05.2012, which can be termed as a very eventful day in the NAB Headquarters in 
Islamabad.  
6. 
It is stated in the NAB Report (CMA 134/2013) that Tauqir Sadiq was within the 
NAB Headquarters building at the time when Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan received the 
warrants. So he immediately called the guards at the reception through intercom and 
directed them to detain Tauqir Sadiq. It appears that the guards did detain Tauqir Sadiq. In 
the meanwhile, Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan went to DG (SOD)’s office for numbering of the 
warrants of arrest. It is stated in the aforesaid report that the DG (SOD) immediately took 
the warrants from Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan and stepped out of the room. A short while 
later he returned and explained to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan that the warrants had been 
CMA 3325/12 in CRP 270/11 
4 
signed by the Chairman only as a result of confusion and that it was a mistake. Then, right 
in front of Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, the DG (SOD) “destroyed the signed arrest warrants”. 
Tauqir Sadiq thereafter managed to escape from the NAB Headquarters prima facie on 
account of this most unusual sequence of event. The Chairman, NAB may explain these 
events.  
7. 
On 07.05.2012 Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, I.O submitted fresh warrants and grounds 
of arrest for the Chairman’s approval. It may be noted that this was the 4th time that 
grounds for warrants and arrest had been prepared by the said IO. The following day i.e. 
on 08.05.2012 the Chairman signed the same. However, it took another one week before the 
signed warrants were sent and handed over to Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan on 15.05.2012. This 
omission also requires to be explained. It was only on 15.05.2012 i.e. more than one month 
after arrest warrants for Tauqir Sadiq had first been sought, that a search could be initiated 
to arrest him.  
8. 
On 03.08.2012, Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan prepared a reference and sent it to the 
Prosecutor General NAB (PGA). The Additional PGA endorsed the reference on 08.08.2012. 
The PGA however, marked the file to one Mr. Ahmed Hayat Lak, General Manager, Legal 
Affairs of OGDCL and also Legal Advisor to Attock Petroleum. It is not clear from the 
record if Mr. Ahmed Hayat Lak had any nexus or concern with NAB or the matter which 
was being investigated by Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan pursuant to our judgment dated 
25.11.2011. We have noted that NAB has its own high powered legal team headed by a 
Prosecutor General who under Section 8 of the National Accountability Ordinance has the 
qualifications for being appointed a Judge of the apex Court. Even today, we have three 
legal persons namely Rana Zahid, Additional Prosecutor General NAB, Mr. Mazhar Ali 
Chohan, Deputy Prosecutor General NAB and Mr. Mehmood Raza, Additional Deputy 
Prosecutor General NAB who are present in Court. NAB may, therefore, explain as to what 
extraordinary qualifications were possessed by Mr. Ahmed Hayat Lak which made his 
examination of matters indispensable for NAB and why it was that such senior 
functionaries in the legal department of NAB were considered either incompetent or 
unqualified to examine this matter? It may also be explained as to why a person potentially 
having a conflict of interest was considered for this purpose and what special qualifications 
CMA 3325/12 in CRP 270/11 
5 
are possessed by him which prompted a reference to him. Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan is 
present in Court and has been questioned. He states that a four page note was prepared by 
Mr. Ahmed Hayat Lak in which he indicated that a reference was made out only in respect 
of CNG and the other references were not justified. The I.O. Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan 
responded by making some detailed noting on file. The matters noted above which have 
been taken from the NAB report (CMA 134/2012) shall be made part of a report along with 
notings mentioned above and the same shall be submitted in Court by NAB. According to 
Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, he decided that it would be highly improper for him to meet Mr. 
Ahmed Hayat Lak because there was a serious conflict of interest which in the opinion of 
Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan was enough to disqualify Mr. Ahmed Hayat Lak. Since there 
appears to be no explanation on record, prima facie, there seems to be some dubious and 
improper conduct which needs to be explained by NAB as the investigating agency in the 
case. 
9. 
On 27.09.2012 i.e. almost two months after Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan had initially 
submitted the reference and more than ten months after the judgment dated 25.11.2011, 
Chairman NAB finally approved a reference but this reference was confined to those 
aspects of the case only which have been highlighted in paragraph 15 of Constitution 
Petition No.42/2011. It is stated by the IO that only 5 persons have been named in the 
reference although this number is likely to increase once the investigation progresses 
further and the trail leading up to the other accused is substantiated through some 
oral/documentary evidence. The other aspects of para 57 of our judgment and the persons 
identified as per sub-para 5(6) were not subjected to any probe or questioning. 
10. 
Today we have heard Mr. Azam Khan, Director (Law) FIA, Mr. Waqas Ahmed 
Khan, Deputy Director NAB and Rana Shahid Pervaiz, SP Punjab Police. From their 
statements made in Court, it appears that after escaping undetected from Pakistan, Tauqir 
Sadiq was apprehended by CID of UAE and was thereafter given in the custody of Interpol 
in UAE. It also appears from the statements made by these three persons that some steps 
may be in the contemplation of their organizations which may actually result in delaying or 
frustrating the return of Tauqir Sadiq to Pakistan. Specifically, it has been stated by all three 
officers that because the two passports which had been issued to Tauqir Sadiq by the 
CMA 3325/12 in CRP 270/11 
6 
Pakistan passport office have been cancelled, the said individual has to be deported from 
UAE. This recourse has not been adopted and instead a long, unnecessary and protracted 
process is being contemplated for extraditing Tauqir Sadiq from UAE to Pakistan. 
Responding to the Court’s query, Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan estimated that deporting would 
take 6-7 days. SP Rana Shahid estimated that this could be achieved in around three days. 
Both averred that the extradition proceeding, on the other hand, would definitely take 
much longer, possibly months. Prima facie extradition would not be required in this case 
because the very basis on which Tauqir Sadiq entered UAE i.e. the Pakistan passport issued 
to him, stands cancelled. According to the I.O. the residence/work visa of Tauqir Sadiq has 
already been cancelled by the UAE authorities.  
11. 
Mr. Azam Khan, Director (Law) FIA, Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, Deputy Director 
NAB and Rana Shahid Pervaiz, SP Punjab Police shall submit their detailed reports in this 
behalf. We may note that Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, Deputy Director NAB and Rana Shahid 
Pervaiz, SP Punjab Police were in UAE since 15.01.2013 with the object of bringing Tauqir 
Sadiq back to Pakistan. The Foreign Office, Director General Passports and other relevant 
authorities are directed to provide all possible assistance to NAB, FIA and other authorities 
pursuing the arrest of the accused and his deportation to Pakistan. These authorities shall 
ensure that Tauqir Sadiq is brought to Pakistan before the next date of hearing.  
12. 
Mr. Waqas Ahmed Khan, has informed us that on 30.01.2013 a reference against 
twelve individuals was prepared as per para 57(5)(b) of our judgment dated 25.11.2011 and 
the same has been forwarded through proper channel and is likely to be signed by 
Chairman NAB. This reference relates to the selection process whereby Tauqir Sadiq was 
first vetted, interviewed and then finally appointed as Chairman OGRA. A 3rd reference 
under section 31 (a) of the NAO has also been prepared by the Deputy Director and has 
been forwarded on 28.01.2013 through proper channel for signing by the Chairman NAB. 
We have also been informed that the Executive Board Meetings (EMBs) have been held in 
NAB Rawalpindi for the purpose of forwarding the aforesaid two references. However, 
EBMs at NAB Headquartes have still not taken place. NAB shall explain the reasons as to 
why this is so, considering the background which has been noted above and the fact that 
more than 14 months have elapsed since our order of 25.11.2011, wherein the Chairman, 
CMA 3325/12 in CRP 270/11 
7 
NAB was directed to “proceed in the matter with the promptness and diligence required in the 
matter”. 
13. 
On a question put to him by the Court, the I.O/Deputy Director NAB stated that 41 
bank accounts in different branches of various banks in the name of Tauqir Sadiq or his 
family members had been detected. In addition to the aforesaid accounts, three other 
accounts in the name of benami account holders were also detected. These accounts 
contained a sum of around rupees three billion (Rs.3,000,000,000) but through an unusual 
occurrence, all 44 accounts were emptied and the amounts therein were siphoned off just 
before a caution was placed on the said accounts by NAB. As a result the amount of rupees 
3 billion was withdrawn and there are no funds left in the said 44 accounts. NAB shall 
explain as to how and why this was allowed to happen. 
14. 
The evidence on record before us gives rise to questions relating to 
deportation/extradition. We may also require assistance on the ambit and parameters of 
the provisions of chapters XI and IX PPC and Section 31(a) of the NAO read together with 
section 476 and 476A of Cr.P.C. Further progress on the matter my require the assistance of 
amicus curiae. Kh. Haris Ahmad, Sr. ASC may be asked to assist the Court in the case. 
15. 
To come up on 07.02.2013 for consideration of the reports sought above and for 
passing appropriate orders. 
Civil Review Petition No.9/2013. Civil Review Petition No. 9/2013 has been filed on behalf 
of NAB. The petitioner seeks review of our order dated 24.01.2013. The learned Prosecutor 
General NAB, Mr. K.K. Agha is busy before Bench No. 1 of this Court. He is not likely to be 
free any time soon and has requested to be accommodated. It is already 03:50 p.m. The 
Review Petition and the case (CMA 3325/2012) is adjourned to 07.02.2013. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad 
31.01.2013 
  


 





 



C.M.A No. 3325/2012CRNP No. 270/2011
In Const. P. no. 42 of 2011 a/w Crl. M.A. No. 547/2012
& Crl. M. A. No. 565/2012 in Crl.Org.P.No. 63 of 2012
& C.R.P 9/2013 in CMA No. 3325/2012
   
 
 


 

  

  


 


 

  
  


    
   

 
    

 


 

  


 






  





  

  


 




547-565/12

  


  


    


1
 


   

 
   


 

 




C.R.P. 9/2013
2013

31

  


    
   
25-11-2011

42/2011







  

      

57
 
25-11-2011
   






 
 




 



 

 

(5) 











  













15
   

 

  







  


  

   

  
 






  
  

  
 





 
  





 





  



  





  








(6)

    


2
   

  







  
45
   

   

(7)








  
 
45

(8)



 
   

 

 


  

  
  
   




   
  

   
 


   




     





   

 

  

  



      


  
9  11


   


 
  




  
  
01-02-2012

2
 

45
  
 






 
  




 



28-02-2012 

 
 

  


  

     


 
  




       

 
16-03-2012


    






  
 

 
  
09-04-2012

3


    
  
 

      

   

    
 






10-40-2012





 

   


  


    


3




  

 
  





 

   
   



    

            





 
 


 

 


  

   
11-04-2012
 
4


16-04-2012

  

         




 


 

  

 

    


  




  








     


  
 42/2011






   

  
02-04-2012



 



       


  

  

 


     
       
17-04-2012
 

5
              
  

   

  
 






 


 



  


 
       








 







      
19-04-2012




      

    
       

   



  


  


   




    


4


  

 
  

  


  
    

 
 
 
    
2-5-2012
     
  


  
  


 

     
 
CMA 134/2013
    
  
6
  
    
   

 
   

    




       


 

     
 






      

  
 
    

           

     


      
  
 


   

  
  



  





 




 
    

  




  
    


  










   
  

  
07-05-2012

7
   

 
 


 


 
  

 


08-05-2012
  
    

  
 




      


    
  
   

15-05-2012


  



 
  


 

    



    


5






       
    

3-08-2012

8



 
  

  
  
  







 

  

  
08-08-2012

 


 
  





  
  
 
 

 8


  

  
 
   


   



 
 

    


  

 
   
  


  
  
 
  

     

     

    

 





  
 



 

  
    
 
 
  

    

     
   

 
   
  
 



           
   

 
     


 








    
 
   

 
27-09-2012

9
  






 
25-11-2011
  

  
42/2011
 
    









    


6
   
  
 



  
15
 


 
    


 

 
57
 



     



 




6




   
          
10





     
 
 


 
 
  
   


 


 

  





 

  
 
  


 

 

 
  

 
 


    

 

  
(Deportation) 
   

 






  
 

 
 
   

   

  
  
(Extradition)
 



 

 


 





 
  

 



 
 








 
    


     

   
 

 
  






        


 
  
 
/
 




    


7
30-01-2013

      
 

11



  
    





  
  

   
 



 


  


 










 
    
   
12
 





 
57(5)(b)


25-11-2011




  




  

 

  

 

31(a)
     

    
  
  


  

28-01-2013
 




   
    
   



25-11-2011



 
   





 
14


     


 


  
   

   


 
 
13


   
   







   
  
 

  



41

 
  

 
 
(3,000,000,000)


  
 


       






 


       




    


8
  
  



  
 
  
 
 
14
 31(a)


    
11  9
 









   
476(a)  476

 
 

  


   

    


  
   

    











  
 


 
  
15


07-02-2013










09/2013


 


24-01-2013

 
    



   
09/2013
 
1

  
  


 
 



  
  




CMA
    




  
3:50
 
    


 

07-02-2013


3325/2012

31-01-2013
 


    


9
