THE COURT OF QAMAR-UL-ZAMAN i JUDGE, ACCOUNTABILITY COURT-IX, LAHORE The State | Versus Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and others. A.C.R No.22/2020 APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 265-K CR.P.C ALONGWITH OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW. 1, MIAN MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF VS. THE STATE. 2. MRS. NUSRAT SHAHBAZ SHARIF AND __MRS. JAVERIA ALI vs. THE STATE 3. HAMZA SHAHBAZ SHARIF VS. THE STATE 4, NISAR AHMAD KHAN AND ALI AHMAD KHAN vs. THE STATE. 5. QASIM QayyUM VS. THE STATE 6. RASHID KARAMAT AND MASROOR ANWAR VS. THE STATE 7. MUHAMMAD USMAN vs. THE STATE 8. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB QAMAR. vs. THE STATE 20.07.2023 Present: Mr. Faisal Shahzad Gondal and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned Special Prosecutors for the NAB. Mr. Anwaar Hussain Advocate/ pleader for accused Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and Mst. Nusrat Shahbaz. Rana Nauman Gohar, Advocate/pleader for Mrs. Javeria Ali accused. Accused Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif is absent. ok Copy ecountaulity Court No. IX aon of ISoe Si Sede : Anwar, Accused Muhammad Stool Name M astey Geer, Rashid Karamat, Ali Ahmai , a Nisar Ahmad and Qasim Qayyum are on e Ey me Accused Mst. Rabia Imran (since Pree j ccused Fazal Dad Abbasi (since died). melee fir Ana Hussain, Advocate Jeerned counsel athe accused Mian Muhammad Shahbaz SI a iy Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Nusrat Shahbaz, Mst. Nisar Ahmad and Ali Ahmad. ro ™r. Zaheer Abbas Ch. Advocate and Mr. paall ee te 7 Advocate learned counsel for Masroor Anwar Karamat accused. Me. Wajahat Ali and Mr. Bilal Hussain Advocates learned Counsel for accused Muhammad Usman. | R ana Muhammad Irfan Advocate learned counsel for Qasim Qayyum accused, i jlaved Arshad Bhatti Advocate learned counsel for accused Muhammad Shoaib Qamar. Mr. Hamid Javaid, Deputy Director/ 1.0. NAB Lahore. | ORDER | This single order shall dispose of the above | titled gy Zo seus COPY applications filed under section 265-K Cr.P.C. | c3nitiod ie eur No. | Recow 2. no) 27S Brief facts as gathered from the record for decision ofthe? 27 applications under section 265-K Cr.P.C are that the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU), Government of Pakistan, forwarded a feport dated 12.01.2018 regarding Suspicious and Currency transactions (STR/CTR) in the bank accounts of accused Mian Muhammad | by them, Another complaint was received at NAB Lahore on 19.10.2018, wherein, it was alleged that assets of Shahbaz Sharif’s family in the early 2000 had total value of Rupees five to six Crore (RS. 50 Million to Rs. 60 Million) only, which increased to Billions of Rupees, with the establishment of around 09-Industrial | Units, during the years 2008 to 2018,4 That the Competent authority authorized an inquiry uted as "Inquiry against Shahbaz Sharif (ICM Punjab), Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Suleman Shahbaz Sharif and others” vide letter Ho, 1Q)HQ/2OL1/NAIL dated 24.10.2018 on the allegations of comuption and corrupt practices: as defined under section 9a) of National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999. Sakd Inquiry was Upgraded into an Investigation Ulled as “Investigation against Ghahbar Sharif (Ex-CM Punjab), Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Suleman Shahbaz Sharif and Others (Assets: Disproportionate to Known Goavees of Income and Money Laundering)” vide letter No. L(OL)NQ/97A/NAB-L dated 04.04.2019 onthe allegations of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section 9(@) of National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 read with Section 3 of Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), 2010 and respective schedules thereto, That Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif accused remained public office holder as MNA in the year 1990. During the years 1993-1997, he served as Leader of the Opposition in provincial Assembly of the Punjab. Afterwards, he held the office of the Chief Minister Punjab in the year 1997 and then from the year 008 to 2018. Currently he is an elected member of the National ‘Assembly of Pakistan, firstly holding the office of Opposition Leader of National Assembly and now Prime Minister of Pakistan. That during and after his public office holding, assets of Mian Muhammad wed Shahbaz Sharif in his own name and in the name of his co-accused eure EY noo3¥ sruneo ueweZ 26°F, eu family members, Benamidars, Front persons, namely Mrs. Nusrat ) hecountabity Court No. | ortied to bo trxe Cony te yo 223Suleman #, Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs. Rabia Imran, Mrs. Javeria Ali and others, fF \onentially without having genuine/known sources 0! investigation it revealed that in the year 1990, ammad Shahbaz Sharif declared (FBR) his net assets as 2 Million (Including the assets of his minor children). In the year 2 018, value of alleged disproportionate assets / funds of Mian mad Shahbaz Sharif, held in his own name and in the name 2 co-accused family members, Benamidars, Front persons, increased to Rs. 6,122 Million. Whereas, the value of said assets ang funds till the year 2018 is Rs. 7,328 Million. For accumulation of ged disproportionate assets, accused persons cloaked their unexplained funds under the garb of foreign remittances received under fake identities, fake loans generated through proceeds of foreign remittances from unknown sources, unexplained gifts and a & network of Benamidars, etc. 5. That on 20.08.2020, Accountability Court Refere! (ACR) bearing No. 22/2020 under section 18(9) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 has been filed on the allegations that accused Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and his family members / benamidars accumulated assets of Rs. 7,328 Million disproportionate to their known sources of income. 6. That after the submission of reference accused persons namely, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Muhammad Hamzasharif, Nisar Ahmad, Al Ahmad Khan, Qasim Quyyum, ¢ Karamat, Masroor Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Fazal Dad died) and Muhammad Shoaib Qamar were arrested subsequently released on Pi arrest bail by the Hon'ble Lahore Court, Lahore and Accountability Court. arif, Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs. Rabia_—Imran, ) Yousaf Aziz and Syed Muhammad Tahir mzan Sugar Mills) did not join inquiry/ investigation proceedings and absconded abroad. However, Mrs. Javeria Ali and Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif (with order of Lahore High Court) joined the trial proceedings through pleaders. Whereas, Sharif, Mrs, Rabia Imran, Haroon Yousaf Aziz and Syed Muhammad Tahir Naqvi were declared as proclaimed offenders by the court vide order dated 26.11.2020. 8. That copies of the reference under section 265-C Cr.P.C delivered to accused persons accordingly. That on 11-11-2020, charge was framed against the accused persons namely, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs. Javeria Ali, Nisar Ahmad, Qasim Qayyum, Rashid Karamat, Masroor Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Shoaib Qamar and Fazal Dad Abbasi D since died). That on 2H? 3 EE }} 02-10-2021 and 20-12-2021 again charge was framed against 1H 2 $2897) accused Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif and Ali Ahmad Khan, ; : 5 2 82 P - maces respectively. \ tits to be true COPY Secoumabity ‘Court No Lahore. 7923A the accused persons pleaded not guilty Prosecution evidence was summoned. Prosecution ined partial evidence whereas 29-PWs, were examined. | 10. and claimed got Avis pertinent to mention here that at this stage accused persons namely, Suleman. Shahbaz Sharif, Haroon Yousaf fale and Syed Muhammad Tahir Naqvi accused joined Investigation Seking pre-arrest bails. That on 10- -05-2023 Mr. Hamid Javal of this case submitted Supplementary investigation report i reference. That on 22-06-2023, after perusal of record as Keeping in vi namely, Suleman Shahbaz Sharif, Haroon Yousaf Aziz and M, ffi incriminating material against them, a ‘That after this, above referred applications under se 265-K of Cr.P.C were filed by the accused/petitioners Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and others. Written replies were si which were submitted by the NAB through Prosecutor on 17-07-2023. 12. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif contended that the accused/petitior innocent and has been falsely involved in this case due to p rivalry. That the accused/petitioner remained the Chief Minisi province of Punjab thricely. That the accused/petitioner intra a number of projects which played a key role not only development of poor people of the Punjab but also i after id, 1.0 in this yell as ‘ew the evidence collected by the 1.0 accused persons, Tahir cient section Mian sought learned Special - A ner is litical ter of duced in the the OnA unoao¥ erred seeweraue serine Aa unune7; development of the country. That due to this reference the political opponent in Government made character assassination of the accused/petitioner on frivolous allegations while misusing the office of NAB. That the reference in hand was filed in order to suppress the voice of Opposition Leader in National Assembly. That accused/petitioner has regularly submitted the income tax return where, he has mentioned the detail of his assets year wise. That Previously the prosecution intentionally has not collected the requisite evidence about the known sources of income of the petitioner/accused in order to bring the case of the accused/petitioner within the mischief of the offences such as corruption and corrupt practices, kickbacks commission, misuse or abuse of public office for personal gains. That the respondent bureau made an admission before the full bench of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in the proceedings of post arrest bail of the accused/petitioner that there were no allegations of receiving of any kickbacks or any ill-gotten money. That offence under section 9(a) (v) of NAO 1999 is not attracted in the light of First and Second Amendment Act 2022 of NAO 1999. That during supplementary investigation the 1.0 collected oral-cum-documentary evidence about the known sources of petitioner and as per supplementary investigation report, the 1.0 has concluded that the Foreign Telegraphic ‘Transfers = (FTTs) ~—and_-—assets/business acquired/established by the accused persons could not be linked with corruption and corrupt practices, commission/kickbacks or erini@r vo ts COPY Senay Court NOK isa e727ner relevant provisions of Law. acquired by the benami, That the were also verified by ? } 3 i which are evident from a letter Additional Director Lahore L+T/NABHQ/270 id) of this case also ed/family dependents. There is no he PW (whose evidence has even a single word against the nO probability of the conviction of of already recorded evidence as 0 be recorded. Mr. Muhammad , Acvecate learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Y igiod 8 Be true CORY Sn 265-K GEE Cou tine Sr a?3 ner. That the learned defence r acceptance of the application u/ < persons also put their shoes on the mad Amjad Pervaiz, learned counsel for the ioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, while arguing section 265-K Cr.P.C and prayed |13. While replying the submissions of learned defence counsel, Mr. Faisal Shahzad Gondal, learned Special Prosecutor made a reliance on the contents of the written replies submitted by the prosecution in the applications under section 265-K Cr.P.C and did not contest the above said applications filed under section 265-K Cr.P.C. 14, Arguments heard. Record perused. 15, Perusal of the record shows that main allegations against the principal accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif is that of corruption and corrupt practices. That the known assets of the accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and his co- accused are beyond means. The main offences of the charge is u/s 9((a) of NAO 1999 as well as section 3 of Anti Money Laundering Act (AMLA) 2010. 16. ‘That relevant Law of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999) (Incorporated National Accountability (a8 & 2°¢ Amendment) Act, 2022 is hereby reproduced as under:~ "9, Corruption and corrupt practices.-(a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices. (v) if he or any his dependents or other Benamidars, through corrupt and dishonest means, owns, possesses in assets substantially of income which or acquires rights or title disproportionate to his known sources he can not reasonably account for. EWR Lo.oe fecount Lahore. 9 7-2) 22%. f he intentionally misuses his authority by to gain any monetary benefit or self or any other person related to him or 1 That Xeeping in view the main allegations as well as S()\v), & question arises whether the family members of Principal accused Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif are Gependents or not? The answer is NIL because they are major, Tanning their own businesses and the evidence *he prosecution on this score not only indirectly but Support the version of the accused persons, Learned defence co unsel during arguments defined the word “dependent” and made @ reliance on the case laws "PLD 2002 Peshawar 118” luhammad Hayat and two others Vs. The State” where Hon'ble Peshawar High Court. Peshawar has defined the word Gependent which is as under:- “It simply means that a person who is financially “dependent” on someone and who requires financial Support from 2 person upon whom he depends for maintenance.” ‘Arcountabl Chere. Later on the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in ati 18, law “PLD 2017 SC 265’ titled as “Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Nine others” have held as under:- “AS far as the issue regarding respondent No.6 namely Mariam Safdar allegedly being a ‘dependent’ of her father namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is concerned I have found that the material produced sined te rue Cony atin bet ye COPY a pd -0]-23eee sol Ao eure, w D before us sufficiently established that respondent NO.6 was a married lady having grown up children, she was a part of a joint family living in different houses situated in the same compound, she contributed towards some of the expenses incurred by the joint family, ubmitted he her independent tax returns, she owned sizeable and Valuable property in her own name, she was capable of surviving on her own and, thus, she could not be treated or treated as a ‘dependent’ of her father merely because she periodically received gifts from her father and brothers. In this view of the matter nothing turned on respondent No.1 nor mentioning respondent No.6 as his dependent in the nomination papers filed by him for election to NA-120 before the generat elections held in the country in the year 2013.” 19, The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case law "PLO 2021 Supreme Court 1” titled as "Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others Vs. The President of Pakistan and others” uphold the principle laid down in a case law titled as “Imran Khan Vs. Nawaz Sharif and others” and further held that “the spouse of the Petitioner Judge was not his dependent in the year 2013.” 20. No doubt the co-accused Mrs, Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif, Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Suleman Shahbaz Sharif and Mrs. Javeria Ali are the family members of the principal accused but are not the dependents from Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Shai any sketch of imagination keeping in view the evidence collected by the prosecution as well as in the light of law settled by the Hon‘ble Superior Courts. 7 oon ti fo be re ay Cou NO. Sn 2013oer ee ec u nd Shbte Stoner este Yr tion Another question is of benamidar, this court has to 21 i decide whether the co-accused persons owned properties as benamidar or not? In this regard, not only the Hon’ble Superior Courts have explained the word "benamidar” but also the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999) (Incorporated National Accountability (1 & 2 Amendment) Act, 2022 in Section 5 the definition of the word “benamidar” has been defined as under:~ | “Benamidar” means a person who ostensibly holds any Property of an accused on his behalf for the benefit and enjoyment of the accused. Explanation.- A property shall only be held as a Benami property when the accused has paid the consideration of the property, and holds title documents and possession of the property with the intention and object of executing @ Benami transaction.” | 22 All the necessary four ingredients have been mentioned in the explanation of benamidar in above referred section. Moreover, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in a case titled as "Ghulam Sarwar Khan Lalwani Vs. The State” |(2016 P.Cr.L.J. 1343) have held as under:- ae “In order to prove the nature of transaction as benami 8 the prosecution was obliged to prove flowing $6 \\ ingredients highlighted by the learned Division Bench of q Peshawar High Court in “Muhammad Hayat and 2 others i v. The State” (PLD 2002 Pesh. 118). servo Ait ue,(1) Source of consideration (2) Holder of title / document (3) person in possession of the property and (4) Intention and object of Benami transaction”. 23. That in the cas e in hand the accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif remained in physical custody of the NAB authorities for a considerable period but the NAB authorities have not got recovered any titled documents from his possession of the impugned properties, which were in the name of his co-accused. That the prosecution has not brought any evidence on the pages of the reference that the consideration amount of such properties wes paid by the principal accused. Moreover, the properties of the co- accused were not found in possession of the accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, That in the same way the evidence collected by the prosecution about the intention as well as motive of the benami transactions is flimsy one. That the 1.0 in supplementary investigation report, as discussed above, has concluded that the alleged assets acquired by the accused persons could not be treated as benami and could not be linked with corruption and corrupt practices. No doubt the findings of the 1.0 are not binding upon the courts but at the same time the findings of the 1.0 cannot be brushed aside because the 1.0 has to collect the incriminating material against the accused persons and when it is » qj) lacking on the pages of the reference, then the version of the ~ f| defence gets direct support from the findings of the 1.0. So, in this i situation, the incriminating evidence about benamidari is flimsy one. centtetfto bo true COPY 1 Frecountability Court Ne Lahore. 9 2 -07- wo" sate Versus Mion Muhammad Shot: nate, That as a matter of the incriminating evid Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif is concg 24 the principal accused the prosecution was duty bound to collect un-shaky evide order to prove that the accused has committed the offer corruption and corrupt practices, etc. In order to prove the all offence, the prosecution has to prove that accused was a f office holder, secondly extent and nature of resources accused, thirdly known sources of accused and fourthly properties in possession of accused disproportionate to his known sources. 25. No doubt in the case, in hand, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif accused/petitioner was holding a public office. | That prosecution was duty bound to collect the evidence whether the accused/petitioner has accumulated the relevant assets) and pecuniary resources by misusing his authority? The prosecution was also duty bound to develop and establish nexus between misuse of his authority and amassing of wealth or assets by the accused/petitioner. That supplementary investigation _feport ence against rned, fee in ce of leged ublic the in possession of accused Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif were not De eat om disproportionate to his known sources. As per documentaty! evidence, available on record, which is in the form of FBR declarations for the period from 2009 to 2018, wherein, income has been declared under the heads of “Other Income” & ‘Business Income’. Such declarations have been made in FBR on regular year to year basis. Further 1.0 found that these funds of Rs.144.67[ any 1/088 Million could not be linked with corruption and corrupt practices, commission/kickbacks or any appropriate Government. The agriculture income of the accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif as per supplementary reference from 2008 to 2018 is shown as Rs.78,686,995/-. His income from salary from 2009 to 2018 is Rs.14.26 Million, That as per report the accused/petitioner i Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif has declared his total assets of | 25,189.65 Million, That NAB authorities while para wise replying the application under section 265-K Cr.P.C submitted that accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif was generating considerable revenue from tunnel farming which correlates with agricultural income as declared in FBR. The prosecution has also mentioned that accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif purchased four apartments during the year 2005 to 2010 in United Kingdom with banking/personal_ loans and gifts from his acquaintances/relatives and found justified. That in the same way, the NAB authorities have submitted that the accused Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif, Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif and Mrs. Javeria i Ali are not the benamidars of accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad ! ' Shahbaz Sharif. 26. That admittedly accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif is a tax payer. Accused/petitioner got submitted the Income Tax Returns in the concerned offices regularly from 2008 to Soper weweZ aeetD 2018. That in this regard the evidence of Muhammad Sharif, Retired eer noe Admin Officer RTO-II Lahore, (PWS) is of much importance, who cerned vo ue CORY Geriaiy Cour NO. tahote. 3-07-236 eset ven dtanubennot hie talent ei, during cross examination deposed that “no legal action was eel taken against Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif accused regarding evasion of tax or concealment of assets,” | 27. Learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the income and the assets shown in the Income Tax Returns has not been challenged by the prosecution till today and further argued that income tax returns have presumption of truth because the accused/petitioner have not prepared these documents in | anticipation in order to save his skin in the future. 28. That in the same way accused/petitioner | Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif has never remained sponsor, member, shareholder, Director or Officer of any company as according {to the evidence of Muhammad Moen, Deputy Registrar SECP Islamabad (PW-14), Sabohi Israr, Additional Joint Registrar SECP Lahore (Pw- 15), Farwa Hassan Management Support SECP Lahore (PW-16), Kashif Islam Mian, Additional Joint Registrar SECP Multan (PwW-17), Tahir Saif-ud-Din, Assistant Registrar, SECP, Lahore (PW-18 and Salman Saeed, Additional Joint Registrar, SECP, Lahore (PW-19). A question arises when accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif has no nexus with the alleged companies, then how he mi corruption through the garb of such companies. 29, That in a bail petition of the accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore (2021 P. Cr. L.J. 1485), NAB authorities categorically admitted before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore that“petitioner is not alleged to have received any kickbacks or any such ill-gotten money in return to a favour extended to someone to build up the assets in the name of his family.” It is also settled by now by the Hon’ble Superior Courts that admitted facts need not to prove. 30, This contention of learned defence counsel was not contradicted by the prosecution that most of the accused/petitioners were not public office holders. When the prosecution in the shape of supplementary investigation report has admitted that the allegations of corruption and corrupt practices, etc. against the accused/petitioners are not proved then there remains a little chance of the conviction of the accused persons in the light of collected as well as recorded evidence by the prosecution. 31. That as a matter of allegations of money laundering against the accused/petitioners is concerned, Anti Money Laundering Act was promulgated in the year 2010. Learned defence counsel argued that most of the TTs, in the name of accused/petitioner. Hamza Shahbaz Sharif are before the promulgation of this Act and he was not holding public office before the year 2008. Learned Special Prosecutor has not controverted this contention of learned defence counsel on this score. As per established law, without the commission of predicate offence there can be no offence of money laundering. While submitting the Tee Looe written reply of the application u/s 265-K Cr.P.C., NAB authorities es Feeuntesity Lanor®s 9 - rue COPY Gaur to. 1% o1- PISnave submitted that the accused/petitioner Mian Muhammad Sharif has no Nexus with FTTs involved in the instant case Mot be linked wi could ith corruption and Corrupt practices Kickbacks y Kdacks oF any sPPropriate Government, during the proceedings, in this Situation the Offence under section 3 of AMLA, 2010 is not attracted, Sharif, Mrs, the accused/petitioners namely, Mian Muhammad | Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs, Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif, Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs. Javeria Ali, Nisar Ahmad Khan, Ali Ahmad Khan, Qasim Qayyum, Rashid Karamat, Masroor Anwar, Muhammad ] Usman and Muhammad Shoaib Qamar are on bail, their sureties stand discharged. 33. The 15-applications for Confirmation of freezing orders passed by Chairman NAB dated 25-11-2019 and 03-12-2019,respectively, and confirmed by the then learned Administrative judge, Accountability Courts, Lahore vide order dated 11-12-2019 is hereby recalled and properties are de-freezed after the limitation given by the Law. The order of freezing of properties, if any, of P.O accused Mst. Rabia Imran, will remain intact, till the decision of her trial. 34. That as a matter of accused Mrs. Rabia Imran 's concerned, she was declared proclaimed offender in terms of section 87 Cr.P.C. vide this court order dated 26-11-2020. Permanent perpetual non-bailable warrants be issued against Mst. Rabia Imran as according to spirit of Law. 35. Evidence of prosecution be not destroyed till the arrest and trial of Mst. Rabia Imran, P.O accused. File be consigned to record room after necessary completion till the arrest of P.O accused Mst. Rabia Imran. Announced: (Qamar-ul-ZAman) 20.07.2023 Judag, Accountability Court-1X, Lahore. Certified that this order consists of Nineteen (19) pages, dictated, read, corrected and signed by me. Announced: man) 20.07.2023 Judad: fi:-1X, Lahore. 20-07 dee \ et 95 ee 72