IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 113 OF 2016 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No. 
644/2011) 
 
Muhammad Hashim Babar 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another  
 
 
 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the Petitioner:  
Mr. Shah Khawar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. 
Nasir 
Mehmood 
Mughal, 
Special 
Prosecutor, NAB 
 
Date of Hearing:  
09.06.2016 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- The petitioner was an accused in 
Reference No. 19/1997 that was filed under Section 14(1) of the 
repealed Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997. After the promulgation of the 
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance in 1999, the Reference 
against the petitioner was renumbered as Accountability Reference No. 
9/1999. The allegation against the petitioner was that he has acquired 
assets beyond his known sources of income. These assets included 
one half share in the house bearing No. 17 situated at College Road, F-
7/3, Islamabad. He was tried and convicted vide judgment dated 
17.11.2000. The punishment that was awarded to him was three years 
rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.2 million and in case of default in 
the payment of fine he was to undergo a further rigorous 
imprisonment for eighteen months. Apart from these punishments, his 
share in the house bearing No. 17, College Road, F-7/3, Islamabad 
Criminal Petition No. 113/2016 
2 
was confiscated in favour of the Federal Government. The petitioner 
challenged the decision of the Accountability Court in the High Court, 
which maintained the sentence as well as the confiscation of 
petitioner’s share in the house vide judgment dated 3.2.2005, however, 
the fine was reduced from Rs.2 million to Rs.500,000/-. The petitioner 
challenged the decision of the High Court before this Court in Criminal 
Petition No. 216-L/2005, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 
30.4.2010. The petitioner then exercised his right to file review. The 
Review Petition bearing No. 55/2010 was also dismissed vide order 
dated 20.9.2010. Thus the matter with regard to the sentence, the fine 
as well as confiscation of half share in the house attained finality in 
proceedings that reached upto this Court.  
 
 
2.  
 
On 17.2.2011 the petitioner moved an application in 
Accountability Reference No. 9/1999 before the Accountability Court 
by taking the plea that as he has served out his sentence of 
imprisonment and also paid the fine, the property that was ordered to 
be confiscated may be ordered to be released and his title to the house 
be restored. Such a relief was sought inspite of the fact that the matter 
with regard to punishment had already attained finality in the earlier 
round 
of 
litigation. 
This 
application 
was 
dismissed 
by 
the 
Accountability Court vide order dated 18.5.2011 on the ground that 
there is nothing in the decision in the earlier round to suggest that 
upon payment of fine, the order of confiscation of his share in the 
house would stand withdrawn. Aggrieved by such decision, the 
petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 644/2011 in the High Court, 
which too met the same fate vide order dated 15.12.2015. Hence this 
petition.  
Criminal Petition No. 113/2016 
3 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the 
petitioner served out his sentence and paid the fine, the property that 
was confiscated ought to have been released by the Accountability 
Court as confiscation would have been only justified had the petitioner 
failed to pay the fine.  
 
 
4. 
 
When this Court put a question to the learned counsel 
for the petitioner that apart from the sentence of three years RI, and 
the payment of fine, the petitioner was also visited with confiscation 
of his half share in a house then how can he seek release of the 
confiscated property to which he replied that in law an accused can 
be visited with fine or confiscation of his property but not with both. 
It is too late in the day to seek reversal of any punishment that was 
awarded to the petitioner in the earlier proceedings and maintained 
upto to this Court. If at all there was any legal basis for such an 
argument, the same ought to have been agitated by the petitioner in 
the first round of litigation. Once the matter had attained finality 
and having failed to obtain decision for recall of the order of 
confiscation of the house in the proceedings that reached upto this 
Court, the matter came to rest forever. The petitioner thereafter 
cannot initiate another round of litigation to avoid a penalty which 
was awarded to him in the earlier round. This would amount to 
seeking nullification of the decision of this Court. This Court in the 
case of Abdul Majid Vs. Abbas Hussain Shah (1995 SCMR 429) went 
to the extent in holding that where an attempt is made in another 
round of litigation to nullify the decision that had already attained 
finality then it amounts to committing contempt of the court. It was 
held that not only the litigant is to be held in contempt but his 
Criminal Petition No. 113/2016 
4 
counsel as well who represented him in such proceedings. Even the 
judge of the Civil Court who entertained such proceedings in the 
second round was held in contempt along with the litigant and his 
counsel. However, in this case we have chosen to exercise restraint. 
We, however, warn the petitioner and his counsel not to indulge in 
such type of litigation in future as the same amounts to showing 
disrespect to the outcome of a legal proceeding that had attained 
finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall also convey our 
displeasure to the counsel who represented the petitioner before the 
Accountability Court and in Criminal Revision in the High Court in the 
second round, so that they may be careful in future and avoid any 
adverse impact on their professional career.   
 
5. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition is 
dismissed and leave is refused.   
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
9th of June, 2016 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
