IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 of 2010, 235 of 
2014, 38 of 2018, Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 2011 and 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 554 of 2018 in 
Criminal Appeals No. 161 to 164 of 2010 
(Against the judgment dated 02.03.2010, 01.06.2011, 11.09.2017 
& 232.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in 
Criminal Ehtesab Appeals No. 01 of 2013, 04 of 2006, 04 of 2007, 
08 of 2012 and 07 of 2009, Civil Petitions No. 536 of 2006, 201 of 
2008 and Contempt Application No. 11 of 2010 in Criminal 
Ehtesab Appeal No. 07 of 2009) 
 
 
The State 
(in Cr. As. 160, 161, 162, 163 and 
164 of 2010) 
Qazi Siraj Ahmed 
(in Cr. A. 235 of 2014) 
Chairman 
National 
Accountability 
Bureau 
through 
Prosecutor-General Accountability, Islamabad  
  
 
 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 38 of 2018) 
Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti (in Cr. P. 27-Q of 2011) 
 
 
…Appellants/Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti (in Cr. A. 160 of 2010) 
Nisar Ahmed, etc. 
(in Cr. A. 161 of 2010) 
Mst. Ambreen, etc.  
(in Cr. A. 162 of 2010) 
Abdul Mateen  
(in Cr. A. 163 of 2010) 
Sher Ali 
(in Cr. A. 164 of 2010) 
The State, etc.  
(in Cr. A. 235 of 2014) 
Farooq Chaudrhy, etc.  
(in Cr. A. 38 of 2018) 
Rooman Zaheer, etc.  
(in Cr. P.  27-Q of 2010) 
           …Respondents 
 
 
For the appellants: 
Mr. Haider Ali, Special Prosecutor-
General, Accountability 
(in Cr. A. 160, 161, 162, 163 and 
164 of 2010) 
Mr. 
Imran-ul-Haq, 
Special 
Prosecutor-General, Accountability 
(in Cr. A. 38 of 2018) 
Mr. Hadi Shakeel Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
(in Cr. A. 235 of 2014) 
Criminal Appeals No. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 of 2010,  
235 of 2014, 38 of 2018, Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 2011  
 
2
 
For the petitioner/applicant: In person.  
(in 
Cr. 
P. 
27-Q 
of 
2011 
and 
Cr.M.A.554 of 2018) 
 
For the respondents: 
Mr. Haider Ali, Special Prosecutor-
General, Accountability 
(in 
Cr. 
P. 
27-Q 
of 
2011 
and 
Cr.M.A.554 of 2018) 
Ashfaq Ahmed son of Nisar Ahmed 
in person (in Cr. A. 161 of 2010) 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan Jadoon, ASC 
(in Cr. A. 162 & 164 of 2010) 
Nemo. (Cr. As. 163 of 2010 & 38 of 
2010) 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.07.2019 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ.: 
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 554 of 2018 in 
Criminal Appeals No. 161 to 164 of 2010 
 
 
Through this miscellaneous application the applicant wanted 
an opportunity to be heard in the subject appeals and we have 
heard him in person at some length. This miscellaneous 
application is, therefore, disposed of.  
 
Criminal Appeals No. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 of 2010, 235 of 
2014, 38 of 2018 and Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 2011  
 
2. 
These appeals and petition pertain to different References 
filed by the National Accountability Bureau against different 
persons and in such cases the trial court had convicted and 
sentenced the relevant accused persons and had passed an order 
regarding a term of imprisonment to be served by the convicts and 
a fine was also imposed. It was also ordered by the trial court that 
“the assets/properties of accused are forfeited as set off against the 
amount of fine, however, in case of non-recovery/non-payment of 
the amount/fine accused shall undergo further term of two (2) 
Criminal Appeals No. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 of 2010,  
235 of 2014, 38 of 2018, Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 2011  
 
3
years R.I.” The said convictions and sentences of the convicts were 
subsequently upheld by the High Court and even by this Court 
with slight reduction in the sentence of imprisonment. This Court 
had clearly and expressly upheld the above quoted portion of the 
order passed by the trial court regarding payment of fine, forfeiture 
of assets and properties and the sentence of imprisonment in 
default of payment of fine. Subsequently an issue arose as to 
whether after the convicts had undergone the sentence of 
imprisonment in default of payment of fine the National 
Accountability Bureau could proceed with forfeiture of the relevant 
assets and properties as a set off for fine or not and it was 
maintained by the convicts that after serving out the sentence of 
imprisonment in default of payment of fine neither the amount of  
fine could be recovered nor the assets or properties could be 
forfeited. The High Court had held through the impugned 
judgments passed by it that the stand of the convicts was correct 
and after serving out the sentence of imprisonment in default of 
payment of fine the amount of fine could not be recovered nor 
could the assets and properties be forfeited. The High Court was 
also of the opinion that ordering otherwise would amount to double 
jeopardy. Hence, the present appeals and petition before this 
Court.  
 
3. 
We have heard the learned counsel as well as the parties 
appearing in person and have perused the record of the case with 
their assistance.  
 
4. 
It appears that the judgment rendered by this Court in the 
case of Ahmad Ali Siddiqui v Sargodha Central Cooperative Bank 
Limited and another (1989 SCMR 824) was not brought to the 
notice of the High Court at the time of passage of the impugned 
judgments. It had been held by this Court in that case in very clear 
and categorical terms that a sentence of imprisonment in default of 
payment of fine is not a substitute for payment of fine but as a 
matter of fact the said sentence of imprisonment is a punishment 
for non-payment of fine. It had also been made clear by this Court 
Criminal Appeals No. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 of 2010,  
235 of 2014, 38 of 2018, Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 2011  
 
4
in that case that even if such sentence of imprisonment in default 
of payment of fine is undergone by a convict the amount of fine is 
still to be recovered from him. In this view of the matter we have 
entertained no manner of doubt that the High Court had 
misdirected itself upon the law as declared by this Court in the 
above mentioned case of Ahmad Ali Siddiqui.  
 
5. 
In some of the present cases an issue had also arisen as to 
whether by virtue of the provisions of section 70, PPC the amount 
of fine imposed upon a convict can be recovered after a period of 
six years after passage of the sentence or fine or not. We note that 
in section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 it 
has categorically been provided that a fine imposed upon a convict 
is to be recovered by way of arrears of land revenue and the said 
provision is not controlled by or subject to the provisions of section 
70, PPC. It appears that in the relevant present cases the High 
Court had again misdirected itself upon the law and had relied 
upon the provisions of section 70, PPC without appreciating that 
the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 were 
to prevail in the matter as that was the special law catering for the 
situation at hand.  
 
6. 
In one of the present cases, i.e. Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 
2011 a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against 
the relevant respondents had been dismissed by the High Court. If 
the High Court had felt satisfied that no occasion had arisen for 
proceeding against the respondents for committing contempt of 
court then there is hardly any occasion for us to interfere with 
such exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter by the 
High Court.   
 
7. 
For what has been discussed above Criminal Appeals No. 
160, 161, 162, 163 and 164 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 
2018 are allowed, the impugned judgments passed by the High 
Court are set aside and it is clarified that by undergoing a sentence 
of imprisonment in default of payment of fine a convict is not 
Criminal Appeals No. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 of 2010,  
235 of 2014, 38 of 2018, Criminal Petition No. 27-Q of 2011  
 
5
absolved of his liability to pay fine and the amount of fine can still 
be recovered from him despite undergoing the sentence of 
imprisonment in default of payment of fine because a sentence of 
imprisonment in default of payment of fine is only a punishment 
for non-payment of fine and is not a substitute for the sentence of 
fine. Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2014 is dismissed. It is also 
clarified that in the matter of recovery of fine in cases under the 
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 the relevant provisions 
are those of section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 
1999 and not those of section 70, PPC. Criminal Petition No. 27-Q 
of 2011 is dismissed. It is further clarified in the context of the 
present cases that if the convicts pay the requisite fine then their 
assets and properties shall not be forfeited as a set off for fine.  
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 23-Q of 2010, 327 of 
2010, 632 of 2018, 25-Q of 2010, 27-Q of 2010, 29-Q of 2010 
and 31-Q of 2010 
 
8. 
As the main appeals and petition have been disposed of by 
this Court today, therefore, these miscellaneous applications have 
lost their relevance. Disposed of.  
 
    
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
02.07.2019 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif 
