ui ‘y Coun COURT OF JU ISLAMABAD. ‘The State Vs 1. Tran Abmed Khan Ninzi S/o Tkramullah Khan Nive, 1 Minister, fo 2 Zaman Park, Lahore, 2, Mst, Bushra timran w/o Imran Ahined Khan Nia Park, Lahore, Present: |Leamed Deputy Prosecutor General NAB Sardar Muzaftar Ahmed Khan fof the Prasceution ‘Team alongwith Mr, Muliammnad Nawaz Chaudhary, Me. Irfan Ahmed Books, Mr. Sohail Arif, and Barrister a iors for the State mad Mohsin is produced in custody. Busha Imran e counsel for both the accused are present. JUDGMENT: 31.01.2024 Brief facts of the case are that reference bearing No. 20/2023 is filed against the two accused persons namely Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran, Copies of the reference were supplied to the accused within the meaning of section 265-C Cr.P.C. A charged was framed to which they pleaded not guilty. However, they did not sign it. The main allegations against the accused are that accused No. | Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and accused No, 2 Bushra Imran received 108x. including the Graff Jewellery Sct from different Heads of States / dignitaries. The Graff Jewellery Sct was received by accused No, 2 being wife of accused No. | from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia during the official visit, and retained against a highly undervalued assessment. The said gift was reported to Toshakhana of Cabinet Division by Deputy Military Secretary vide the letter dated 24.09.2020 as the gift was not deposited in accordance with The Procedure for the Acceptance and Disposal of Gifts, 2018. Accused No. 2 in connivance with accused No. 1 violated the clause No. | of the V1 Procedure for the Acceptance and Disposal of Gifts, 2018 by not depositing the gift at Toshakhana prior to its retention. Both the accused Beanscannerpersons in connivance with each other unlawfully exerted pressure and undue influence on private appraiser namely Sohaib Abbasi (since Approver) through Syed Inam ullah Shah (Former Private Secretary / Comptroller to accused No.! /PM Office) to have illegally undervalued assessment of the said Graff Jewellery Set, of their own choice, and illegally retained the same against payment of meagre amount of Rs. 9.03 million (approx.) on the basis of undervalued price assessment of Rs, 18092000/-, Whereas, the actual assessment was USS 19,492,200/- which is equivalent to Rs. 3,165,533,280/- (@ $I= Rs. 162.4 on 16.10.2020) as per Expert from Diamond and Jewellery Industry namely Mr. Imran Bashir of M/s Rainbow Impex FZE Dubai, UAE. ‘The said expert was engaged through Consulate General of Pakistan at Dubai. 50% of the assessed price was to be deposited as per prevailing Jaw i.e. Rs.1573.72 million, Both the accused, by way of dishonest corrupt and illegal means, misusing the position and power vested in the Office ofthe Prime Minister had obtained monetary gain amounting, (0 Rs.1573.72 million, caused a loss to the National Exchequer, fraudulently misappropriated public property for personal gain, and violated the Procedure for the Acceptance and Disposal of Gifts, 2018 read with the Rules of Business 1973. Thereby, both the accused Persons have commited the offences of corruption and comupt Practices as defined ws 9(a)(iiXiv)(vi) & (xi) of the NAO, 1999 Punishable ws 10 of the NAO, 1999 and Sr. No. 02 of the Schedule thereto, Prosecution has produced as many as 16x witnesses. Five of them eross examined while remaining were not cross examined due to one or other ‘easons. Ultimately, ther rights to cross examine the PWs was closed Vide order dated 29.01.2024 because the defence counsel was not ready ‘0 cross examine the witness, A resume of prosecution witness is siven below: PW-l Mr. Muhammad Faheem S/o Abdul rorking as Assistant Director UN«Il, Ministry 'slamabad, deposed that on 24.07.2023, he appeared before Investigating Officer ‘namely Muhammad Mohsin Haroon at NAB G-6 OMice regarding the Toshakhana case against Ex. Prime Minster Ghafoor, currently of Foreign Office, \CamScanner2 Imran Ahmed Khan. He confirmed that he had received a letter dated 23 June 2023 bearing No. DCG1/2023(CIT) received from Consulate General of Pakistan by Mr. Raheemullah Khan Deputy Consulate General of Pakistan enclosing original assessment report and an affidavit. He forwarded the letter to NAB headquarter through covering Jewter under his signature. Investigating Officer showed him the said documents and he confirmed before the 1.0 that these are the same Papers which were forwarded to him. ‘The signature on his covering letter is Exh, PW-1/1 (as page 232 vol-I). Annexures of the letter are available on the reference (as pages 234 to 237) which are Exh.PW-1/2, PW-2 Qaiser Mehmood S/o Manzoor Hussain, currently working as Additional Director International Cooperation Wing NAB Headquarter deposed that on 17.8.2023, Combined Investigation Team (CIT) came to his office NAB Headquarter Islamabad for seizure of the record in inquiry against Imran Khan Niazi. The record of Ministry of Foreign Office of dated 26.6.2023, Evaluation report, Affidavit, Letter dated 23.6.2023 of Pakistan Representative in Dubai. These documents were received in Intemational Cooperation Wing NAB Headquarter Islamabad. He being dealing Desk Officer, forwarded those documents {0CIT. Those documents were seized through the seizure memo which bears his signature and his signature thereon is Exh.PW-2/1 (page 231). i. Original letter of Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. UN(II)- 10.2.2023 dated 26.6.2023 already exhibited as (Exh.PW-I/1) available at page 232 to 233. Original letter dated 23.6.2023 of Deputy Consulate for AD (UN-II), same is Exh.PW-2/2 (page 234), ii Original affidavit of Mr. Imran Bashir, same is Exh.PW-2/3 (page 235) iv. Original evaluation report of Rainbow Impex FZE, same is ExhPW-2/4 (page 236 & 237). PW-3 Mr. Sajid Khan S/o Madad Khan, presently serving as Joint Director State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi deposed that on 22.1 1.2023, hhe appeared before Mr. Mohsin Haroon 1.0 of the case at NAB Rawalpindi Office in Toshakhana case. He provided data of mark to mark revaluation of US Dollars to Pakistani Rupees. The data consisting on 07x pages and same is system generated which is also available at State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) official website. Same data was seized by the I. on the same date when he appeared before the 1.0. He has seen the seizure memos which bears his signature, His signature thereon is Exh,PW-3/1 (page 241). exchange rate, same is Exh.PW-3/2 (page 242) Attested copy of exchange rate for mark to mark revaluation a\ M dated 28.5.2021, same is Exh.PW-3/3 (page 249). if i, Attested copy of mark to Mark Revaluation USD / PKR Cicamscanner4 en S/o Sher Ali Abbas presently serving as okhana, Cubinet Division deposed that on TL8.2023, he appeared before the ILO Mr, Mohsin Haroon in a case Almed Khan Niwzi, The record which was or in office Mr. Mohsin (the then Wet Mr, Hin Yi or in office. The record was mn, The said record was seized in the He ascizure memo which bears h.PW-4/ (page 26 & 27). The record contains; Certified true copies of minutes of meeting dated 20.8.2018, h.PW-4/2 (page 28 & 29). ¢ copies of documents related to firms applied for oshalhana Cabinet Division, same is Exh.PW-4/3 8 30 to 92), Procedure / Rules for acceptance and disposal of Toshakhana Gift from 1973 till 2018 (pages 93 to 128) (the prosecution intents (0 exhibit copies cited above but not allowed). x ii, iii. System generated list of gifts presented to Mr. Imran Khan, the relevant page is Exh.PW-4/4 (page 135 serial No. 70). Certified true copies of toshakhana stock register, same is Exh.PW-4/5 (page 140 to 215). Certified copy of relevant entry of first entry register pertaining to Graff Jewelry set, same is Exh. PW-4/6 (page 216). Original letter dated 24.9.2020 issued by PM Office regarding declaration of Graff jewelry set, some is Exh, PW-4/7 (page 217). Original letter dated 9.10.2020 issued by SO TK to M/s Agilent for assessment of Graff Jewelry Set, same is Exh.PW-4/8 (page 218) Certified true copy of letter dated 14.10.2020 issued by SO TK to Custom, FBR for assessment for Graff Jewelry Set, some is Exh.PW-4/9 (page 219) Original letter dated 9.10.2020 of M/s Agilent, same is Exh.PW- 4/10 (page 220). Original letter dated 14.10.2020 C No. 2271 price assessment report of Graff Jewelry set received from Model Custom Collectorate Islamabad, same is Exh,PW-4/11 (page 221). Original letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by SO (TK) to PM Office, same is Exh.PW-4/12 (pages 222 & 223). vi. vii. viii. ix. xi. xii. (59 CamScannera 5 xiii, Original letter dated 28.10.2020 issued by PM Office (Internal) regarding payment of detention cost of Graff Jewelry Set alongwith deposit slip, same is Exh.PW-4/13 (page 224 t0 227), As per the record produced by him in the Court pertaining to Toshakhana Section Cabinet Division, the Graff Jewelry set which was Presented to Prime Minister was not deposited in Toshakhana, Cabinet Division. Again said thatthe gift was presented to Prime Minister and his spouse. PW-5 Mr. Zahid Sarfraz Azam S/o Chaudhary Alamgir presently serving as Assistant Secretary Protocol Prime Minister Office (Internal) deposed that on 15.09.2023, he appeared before the Investigating Officer (1.0) namely Mr. Mohsin Haroon in the case against Imran Khan Niazi (Toshakhana). Protocol section deals with the personal as well as official assignment of Prime Minister. The then Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife has received gifts including Graff Jewelry Set, Deputy Military Secretary wrote a letter to SO Toshakhana for price assessment of Graff Jewelry Set. The Cabinet Division after price assessment of the said gift informed to the Deputy Military Secretary Lt. Col Rehan Mehmood. The letter pertaining to price assessment was shown to then Prime Minister Imran Khan Niazi by Military Secretary. The then Prime Minister which show his desire to retain it. The retention was deposited through a voucher in tate Bank of Pakistan by Protocol Section under his signature. Deputy Military Secretary Lt. Col Rehan informed the So Toshakhan in that regard through the letter, Graff Jewelry Set was not deposited in Toshakhana. It is practice of Protocol Section that photograph is taken of every gift received by the dignitaries. The photographs of Graff Jewelry set was also available on official record. He handed over the relevant official record maintained in respect of Graff Jowelry Set to 1.0. The same record was examined by the 1.0 and the record was seized by the 1.0. A seizure memo was Prepared and he signed it in the presence of two witnesses. He has seen the scizure memo dated 15.09.2023 which bears his signature. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-S/1 (253). The details of the documents produced by him are as under: 1, Certified copy of declaration of gift dated 24.09.2020, same is Exh.PW-5/2 (page 254). 2. Certified copy of the letter of section officer dated 16.10.2020, same is Exh.PW-5/3 (page 255 & 256). 3. Certified copy of the letter dated 28.10.2020 of Prime Minister Office, same is Exh.PW-5/4 (page 257) 4. — Certified copies of challan deposit slip dated 26.10.2020, same is Exh PW-5IS (pages 258 & 259). (A better copy of page 259 is provided to learned defence counsel). 5. Certified copies of challan deposit slip dated 26.10.2020, same is ExhPW-5/6 (page 260). CB camscanner6 Certified copies of challon deposit slip dated 27.10.2020 alongwith copy of cheque, same is Exh.PW-S/7 (pages 262 to 264), 7. System gonerated colored picture of Graff Jewelry Set presented by Crown Prince of KSA, same is Exh.PW-5/8 (page 265). PW-6 Robin Samad D/o Abdul Samad, presently serving as Appraising Officer Pakistan Custom, deposed that on 14 June 2023 she appeared before investigating Officer (1,0) namely Mr. Mohsin Haroon at NAB Office situated at G-6 in connection with Toshakhana case against Imran Khan Niozi Ex-Prime Minister. 1.0 showed assessment report dated 14.10.2020 by the 1.0. ‘That assessment report was containing her signature as Appraising Officer. He has seen that assessment report today in the Court. His signature thereon is Exh.PW- OM (221). She affirmed before the 1. that the signature on the Assessment report is her. The assessment report contains the price of Bifls i.e. one box containing one wrist watch Rolex, pair of cuff links, one ‘ring, one unstitched cloth, one jewelry box containing one necklace, one bracelet, one ring, and pair of ear ring. She had not conducted appraisement independently rather he simply relied upon the assessment report of Private Appraiser namely Mr. Sohaib Abbasi, Which report was received from Toshakhana StafT and which is called advisory price list. She had not physically inspected the gift items cited above. She had not considered the brand Graff and specification of the above cited gift items were not shared to her. She had no expertise to assess the customized toshakhana gifts. The assessment of the gift was ‘not her job description and She was performing additional task. The assessment report which was signed by her was forwarded to her Supervisor, Azeem Manzoor Principal Appraiser. PW-7 Mr. Azeem Manzoor S/o Muhammad Manzoor Bhatt presently serving as Principal Appraiser Pakistan Customs, deposed that on 09 June 2023, he appeared before the Investigating Officer namely Mr. Mobsin Haroon in the case against Ex. Prime Minister Imran Khan Niazi pertaining to Toshakhana gifs. 1.0 showed assessment report dated 14.10.2020 pertaining to Graff Jewelry Set, That Assessment Teport was countersigned by him. He recognized his signature on the assessment report available at page 221 as already exhibited as Exh PW-4/11. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-1/1 (page 221), The said assessment report was forwarded to him by Rabia Samad the Appraising Olficer, which also bears her signature. He had not conducted independently any assessment but he relied upon the assessment made by Private Appraiser Schaib Abbasi and assessment made by Appraising Officer Rabia Samad, He did not consider the value of the brand Graff while countersigning the report. Similarly, he did not physically examine the Graff Jewelry Set, Nor he had any expertise to appraise the actual value of such types of customized items. ”y He handed over the assessment report to Staff of Cabinet Division. Bcamscanner 41ah 7 PW-8 Mustansar Imam Shah S/o Imam Shah Hashmi, presently serving as Assistant Director NAB Rawalpindi, deposed that during inquiry and investigation of Toshakhana against Imran Khan Niazi Ex- Prime Minister and his spouse, certain documents were seized by the 1.O, He is witness of the following seizure memos. 1, The seizure memo dated 11,8.2023, which bears my signature. My signature thereon is Exh.PW-8/1 (page 27). 2. The seizure memo dated 17.8.2023, which bears my signature. My signature thereon is Exh.PW-8/2 (page 231). 3. The seizure memo dated 22.11.2023, which bears my signature. My signature thereon is Exh.PW-8/3 (page 241). 4. The seizure memo dated 15.9.2023, which bears my signature, My signature thereon is Exh.PW.-8/4 (page 253). 5. The seizure memo dated 4.12.2023, which bears my signature, My signature thereon is Exh. PW-8/5 (page 269). PW-9 Mr. Rahimullah Khan S/o Shamir Khan presently working as Deputy Consulate General Pakistan at Dubai, deposed that on 27 June 2023, he joined the inquiry and appeared before the Inquiry Officer namely Mr. Mohsin Haroon at NAB Rawalpindi through Zoom video from Pakistan Consulate General Dubai in connection with case against Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi regarding, Toshakhana gifts. He was asked to provide information with respect to letter of NAB sent for providing price evaluation of 10x gifted items. Thereafter, he contacted with Graff company since these items were ‘manufactured by said company. However, the company conveyed that price evaluation is possible only if original items are produced, The Consulate was not in possession of the original items but only details of the items. Keeping in view the importance of the matter we tried to explore other options pertaining to gold and jewelry business including Mis Rainbow Impex FZE which they were informed that itis one of the renowned company related to gold and jewelry business. Thereafter, the Consulate deputed Mr. Mohsin Habib Admin Assistant to visit different businesses as mentioned earlier. After few days, Mr. Imran Bashir representative of M/s Rainbow Impex FZE visited the office of Consul General Dubai. The Consul General instructed Mr. Moshin Habib to provide the list of the gifted items along with details of the gifted items to Mr. Imran Bashir for price evaluation, On 13 August, Mr. Imran Bashir came to the Consulate General again along with the evaluation report of the gifted items and affidavit stating, that he produced the prices of the gifted items in person. On 23 June 2023, the Consulate dispatched the details along with covering letter signed by him. He has seen covering letter already exhibited as Exh.PW-2/2. His signature thereon is Exh.PW-9/I (page 234). Affidavit at page 235 already Exh.PW-2/3 and evaluation report by M/s Rainbow Impex FZE comprising of two pages available as page 236 & 237 already exhibited4}-) vw lariat Islamabad, A request was made by Investigating Officer to Deputy District Magistrate for recording of st Inamullah and approver marked to him by Diste ed above appeared before gave 24 hours / one day to pond over or think over their statements which they were going t ke. He asked compulsory questions from cach of the persons cited above before recording thcir statements to ascertain as to whether they have any pressure or not to make their statements. After fulfilment of all codal formalities, he recorded statements of each of the persons cited above separately. He obtained their signed and thumb impression on their statements, An signed it. ‘The statements recorded by him read over to them. statements were scaled in two envelopes and sent to concerned Court. He has seen the envelope having statement of Mr. Sohaib Abbasi. That envelope is Exh.PW-12/1 (at this stage learned Prosecutor submits that cavelope may be opened to place the statement on record) (CO: the envelope is directed to be opened in the Court). The statement consisting on 5x pages, each page contains his signature as well as seal of the Magistrate, Questionnaire, statement and memorandum are Exh.PW-12/2. He has seen the envelope having statement of Mr. Inamullah Shah. That envelope is Exh.PW-12/3. (at this juncture learned Prosecutor submits that envelope may be opened to place the statement on record) (CO: the envelope is directed to be opened in the Court). The statement consisting on 5x pages, each page contains his signature as well as seal of the Magistrate, Questionnaire, statement and memorandum are Exh.PW-12/4. PW-13 Imran Bashir son of Bashir Masih, solemnly affirmed that he appeared through video link before 10 NAB on 27.06.2023 in Toshakhana Case against the accused namely Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. He has been living in Dubai for the last four years, and working with M/s Rainbow Impex FZE, for the last three years. M/s Rainbow Impex FZE is a registered company which deals with jewellery and antique items. His statement was recorded by the IO regarding the assessment of jewellery Graff set, bracelet watch of BVLGARI. Their company was approached for this purpose through Consul General Pakistan. The company assigned him for the assessment of said Jewellery set. He with a colleague visited a Consulate General Office, and obtained specifications of the items from the office. After obtaining specification of the items he came back to his company. The company gave the task to search in market for assessment and price. He searched market for that purpose, He obtained input from the dealers of the Diamonds and from the outlets of the Graff Jewellery. We assessed the value of the jewellery items in light of input. The word We is used as the team was working including him and his senior Egyptian. He prepared assessment report (already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/4), available on record is shown to him, which bears his signature, his signature thereon is Ex, PW-13/1 (pg 236) his signature on the next page is Ex. PW-13/2 (pg 237). As per assessment the value of the Graff |. When the persons4): a ‘was found US$ 19492.200 million, again said US$ 19.492 million and price of bracelet watch of BVLGARI USS 23,5000. After preparation Of the report he submitted the report in office of Consulate General, where he signed an affidavit, which bears his signature and thumb impression, available as pg 235 of the reference, which are Ex. PW- 13/3. He retained photocopy of the report with him as a record. While his statement was being recorded by the IO, he showed him the affidavit and the assessment report, he affirmed the affidavit and assessment report, Which bore his signatures. PW-14 Syed Inam Ullah Shah son of Syed Sahib Shah, deposed that ‘on 04.12.2023, he appeared before 10 Mohsin Haroon at Rawalpindi in connection with the case Toshakhana of Ex-Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi. He served as Comptroller Prime Minister Office from February 2019 to July, 2021. He looked after personal affairs of accused Imran Ahmed Khan and his wife. During the tenure of Ex. Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan he received several gifts from foreign dignitaries such as watches and jewellery sets. He used to meet Private appraiser Sohaib Abbasi on the instructions of Ex. Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan and his wife in connection with the assessment of precious gifts as per their desires as per the list referred to Sohaib Abbasi for assessment from Cabinet Di in September 2020 a graff jewellery set was received from Prince of KSA to Imran Ahmad Khan and his wife. He was called by the accused Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi to mect with the private appraiser Mr. Sohaib Abbasi for undervalue assessment as they want to retain the said gift. He met with Sohaib Abbasi Private Appraiser at his office Taj Mahal Plaza 6" Road, Rawalpindi and conveyed the message of Imran Khan and his wife that they wanted to retain the gift so that the same may be assesses as undervalued. He showed graff jewellery set to him and also provided detailed specification of graff jewellery set to Sohaib Abbasi. Thereafter, Sohaib Abbasi contacted him to inform Imran Khan and his wife that he had assessed the value of the set as Rs. 18 million and said assessment had been reported to Cabinet Division and he informed Imran Khan and wife about the assessment of said graff jewellery set that said appraiser assessed the same as per their desired price. 10 produced him before the Magistrate for recording his statement. The Magistrate provided him 24 hour time for thinking over. After 24 hours he appeared before the Magistrate and he got recorded his statement. He has seen his statement which is recorded by the Magistrate in the court. He signed and thumb impressed the same at 04 places, his signatures and thumb impression are Ex. PW-14/1 to 14/4. PW-15 Mr. Sohaib Abbasi son of Fida Hussain Abbasi, deposed that on 04.12.2023, he appeared before IO Mohsin Harroon in connection with the case of Toshakhana against Imran Ahmad Khan Ex. Prime Minister. He is CEO of Agilent Traders and Suppliers, and approved appraiser of Toshakhana Cabinet Division. During the tenure of Me Imran Khan Ex. Prime Minister many expenses gifts such as Rolexwatches, Jewellery set were referred to him far assessment from ‘Voshakhann, In Qetober 2020, a list from is office plaza. He ‘wellery Set, he also informed s of Mr, Imran Khan and his wife and that they wanted to retain that graft jewellery set. Mr. Inam Ullah Shah also told him that he should the price of that jewellery set as undervalued. The was also shown to him. He assessed Jewellery set as Rs. 18 million and he also prepared his ent report on letterhead and referred it to SO ‘Toshakhana, He hhas seen the report wh dy exh : signature, 1 ‘on is Ex. PW-15/1 (pg 220). He ng paper on the basis of specifications received to him. He deposited photocopy of his working paper to 10 and 10 seized his working paper in presence of two witnesses through a scizure memo, which contains his signature. His signature thereon is Ex. PW-15/2 (pg 269). He produces original working paper pertaining to the assessment. Photocopy of which is Ex. PW-15/3 (pg 270 to pg 272). Original is Ex. PW-15/4 (two sheets). The assessment was not transparent and fair. The actual value of the Graft jewellery set, ete was much higher. He is approver in the case. His statement was recorded before the Magistrate. The price assessment was made under pressure of Syed Inam Ullah Shah who had conveyed to him the instructions of the then Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan and his wife. PW-16 Muhammad Mohsin Haroon son of Haroon Ahmed Rasheed presently serving as Deputy Director NAB Rawalpindi deposed that he joined NAB in August 2015. He was authorized to conduct Inquiry vide the letter dated 25.05.2023, copy of which is Ex. PW-16/1 (pg 21). After authorization of inquiry to him he perused case file and found that this inquiry was initiated on the basis of source report, which is available at pg 24 to pg 25. The letter of delegation of powers regarding authorization of inquiry dated 01.08.2022 is Ex. PW-16/2 (pg 19) and consequently, DG NAB (R) authorized inquiry to previous 10 namely Maryam Bint ¢ Saeed vide letter dated 05.08.2022, same is Ex. PW- 16/3 (pe 20). During inquiry, he collected record and recorded statements of witnesses. He also analysed the record collected by the previous IO. On the basis of collected record and statements of witnesses it was found that the accused Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran retained 58 gifts which were received from different Heads of the State, including the Graff Jewellery Set received from Crown Prince of KSA. The accused persons did not deposit these gifts in Toshakhana in violation of clause 1 of Toshakhana Procedure. ue price which was Moreover, the gifs were retained on an undervalue pr hve malafidely assessed by the Private Appraiser Sohaib Abbasi onav 2 Government Appraisers to give undue benefit to the above mentioned accused persons. During inquiry efforts were made to find out the actual price of these gills including the Graff Jewellery Set. In this regard requests for price assessment of these gifls were made through the letter dated 28.04.2023 to the Secretary Cabinet Division, which is Ex. PW-16/4 (pg 320 and Pg 321), (original oftice copy is scen and returned), Secretary Ministry Of Industries and production is Ex. PW-16/5 (pg 322 and pg 323), (original office copy is seen and returned), the letter dated 19.01.2023 to Chairman Pakistan Gems and Jewellery and Development Company is Ex, PW-16/6 (pg 324), the letier dated 19.01.2023 to Chairman Pakistan Gems and Jewellery Traders and Exporter Associate is Ex. Pw-16/7 (pg 325), (original office copy is seen and returned), the letter dated 24.05.2023 of Secretary M/o Energy and (Petroleum Division), is Ex. PW-16/8 (pg 326 and pg 327), the letter dated 24.05.2023 written to Secretary M/o Energy (Petroleum Division, Islamabad, is Ex. PW- 16/9 (pg 326 and pg 327), During inquiry requests for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) to UAE, UK, Switzerland, and Italy were generated for the price of gifted States Items retained by the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran, Copies of these MLA are annexed with the reference. Copy of MLA sent to UAE is Ex.PW-16/10 (pages 280 to 295) (Oftice copy is shown and retumed). Copy of MLA sent to UK is Ex.PW-16/11 (pages 296 to 302) (Office copy is shown and retumed) (STO). Copy of MLA sent to Switzerland is Ex.PW-16/12 (pages 303 to 310) (Office copy is shown and retumed) (STO). Copy of MLA sent to Italy is Ex.PW-16/13 (pages 311 to 319) (Office copy is shown and retumed) The replies of these MLAs were not reccived, Therefore, during inquiry a letter was written to Consul General of Pakistan, Dubai for the price assessment of gifted State's items through NAB Headquarter. The letter dated 24.5.2023 stated above is Ex.PW-16/14 (pages 328 & 329). And NAB Headquarter letter dated 25 May 2023 written to DG (ME) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Islamabad is Ex.PW-16/15 (pages 330 to 332). In response to the request Consul General of Pakistan, Dubai price assessment report was received through Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From this report, it was found that the Consul General Office found M/s Rainbow Impex FZE for the price assessment ofthe gifts and the employee of said M/s Rainbow Impex FZE Mr. Imran Bashir prepared the price assessment report. It was further found that the said expert provided complete price assessment of Graff Jewelry Set retained by the accused persons. Whereas, partial price assessment of Bvlgari Jewelry set was also included in the report. On the basis of this expert reporr, it was found that the price of Graff Jewelry Set is US Dollar 19.49 million, whereas, price of this gift was previously undervalued assessed by the approver Mr. Sohaib Abbasi as Rs. 18 million (approx.). Afler the receipt ofthis report, the concemed officers / )) officials of Consul General of Pakistan, Dubai as well as the said expert Mr, Imran Bashir were examined through video link and their statements CBcamscannerr a ws 161 Cr luring, exehiequ * Were recorded, On the by eport, it was concluded that to the mati he time of Rs, 1573.72 million by retaining, the ¢ etal an undervalue! ion was authorized on the NAB vide letter dated Powers, DG NAB authorized him to conduct investigation vide letter dated 14.7.2023, which is 1ix,PW-16/17 (page 23), ization, record pertaining, to the case was seized from five different PWs through following seizure memos. 1, Seizure memo dated 118.2023, same is Ex.PW-16/18 (page 26 & 27), Seizure memo dated 17.08.2023, same is Ex.PW-16/19 (page 231), 3. Seizure memo dated 22.11.2023, same is Ex.PW-16/20 (page 241). 4. Seizure memo dated 15.09.2023, same is Ex.PW-16/21 (page 253). 5. Seizure memo dated 04.12.2023, same is Ex,PW-16/22 (page 269). All these seizure memos were prepared by him and the same also bears vp his signatures. During investigation, statements of witnesses were also recorded ws 161 Cr.P.C. On 4.12.2023, Mr. Sohaib Abbasi appeared before him and disclosed that he deliberately and intentionally undervalued the price assessment of Graff Jewelry Set on the asking of accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan and his wife Bushra Imran Khan, He also disclosed that the instructions of the accused persons for undervaluation of the assessment were conveyed by Syed Inam Shah. He further requested that he may be granted pardon. He was produced before the Chairman NAB who after hearing him granted him pardon. Documents pertaining to Pardon are Ex.PW-16/23 (page 277 to 272). The said Sohaib Abbasi was then produced before the Magistrate on 5.12,2023. The Magistrate granted him 24 hours time for recording his yext VIA etamntove 144.060 0 Accondinoly. his statement was recordedhw ® ia a\4 4 date. During investigation, Syed Inamullah Shah also appeared and narrated that he on the direction of accused persons conveyed to the Private Appraiser that the price of the gifl may be kept below its original price. So that the same may be retnined by the accused persons on an undervalued price. He was also produced before the Magistrate (as witness) who recorded his statement. During Inquiry and investigation, more than five call up notices were issued to accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran directing them to bring the retained gifts including Graff Jewellery set, so that its price assessment may be conducted but the accused persons did not provide any jewellery set. He produces copy of call up notice dated 12.6.2023 and its original reply dated 16.6.2023, copy of call up notice dated 16,6.2023 and its original reply dated 20.6.2023, copy of call up notice dated 22,6,2023 and its original reply dated 22.6.2023, copy of call up notice dated 23.6.2023 and its original reply dated 26.6.2023, copy of call up notice dated 27.6.2023 but no reply was given. Similarly, copies of call up notice to accused Bushra Imran dated 24,8,2023, 31.8.2023, 05.09.2023, 07.09.2023, 11.10.2023 and 08.12.2023 and original replies dated 4.09.2023, 12.09.2023, and 16.10.2023, same are placed on file and not exhibited / marked. During investigation accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi was arrested on 13.12.2023 and remained on physical remand for two days. On the basis of record, statement of witnesses, and approver, as well as version of accused persons, He concluded that accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran in connivance with each other committed the offences of corruption and corrupt practices define w/s 9(a) of the NAO, 1999 and schedule thereto by not only retaining and misappropriating the State's gifts including Graff jewelry set on an undervalued price but also caused loss to national exchequer to the tune of Rs, 1573.72 million. He prepared investigation report with recommendation that reference against accused persons be filed. Day to day hearing is the rule in the trial of session cases #5 Vs The State, PLD 1959 West case must be expeditiously it was held in Muhammad Hussain Pakistan Lahore 322 that a criminaldisposed of without unnecessary delay. Delaying tacties are considered a8 abuse of process of court because, protracted proceedings are a ‘mockery of the law and must be deemed to be an abuse of process of Courts as held in the case reported as Muhammad Hussain vs State - PLD 1959 WP Lahore 322. Im the present case, conduct of the accused regarding trial Proceedings was very non-cooperative / restrictive and hurdle creating despite the fat that the trial proceedings were being conducted in the Jail in view ofthe security ofthe accused. The counsel in the case were Tepeatedly changed with purpose to seck adjounments and they were found even not ready to cross examine the prosecution witnesses in Spite of the fact that dates and times were fixed according to their own choice, similarly when the date was fixed for the statements of accused, the statement of one of the accused was possible to be recorded due to non-cooperative behaviors of the accused / their counsels. Therefore, first questionnaires were handed over to both the accused. Copies of the Questionnaires are also placed on file, wherein all the circumstances / (evidence against the accused were putin shape of questions therein so that both the accused could explain their positions. In statement of accused, Bushra Imran profess innocence and opted to produce defence evidence. The case was adjoumed for recording of the statements of the accused and defence evidence and further proceedings but on next date of hearing accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi appeared in mood. He was asked about the recording of his, Statement as per questions noted in questionnaire. He said that questionnaire with answers is lying in his room and he went to bring questionnaire with answers, He was awaited but he did not return back and even he refused to come in the Court. The counsel of both the Parties as well as the accused Bushra Imran did not appear in the court even did not come in the jail premises. Despite the facts that they were in knowledge of the date and time fixed in the case, ‘The questionnaires were provided to the accused so that they could think over the questions noted therein and answer them. When they were not ready to record their statements ws 342 CrP.C in16 Perspective of their conduct of hampering / frustrating the trial, The questionnaires were provided, this provision of the questionnaires is indicative of the fact on part of the court that questions were put to the ‘Accused to answer but not answered by the accused Imran Ahmed Khan ‘Niazi. He was not interested in answering the questions. Legally, an Accused is not bound to answer the questions, he can even refuse to ‘answer the questions put to him or can give false answers without any criminal liability, Itis noteworthy here that several hours were consumed by the accused and their counsel in deliberation / consultation / preparation of answers to the questions of the questionnaires even then, they were adamant to get the statements of the accused recorded by the court. However only statement of one of the accused could be recorded. The accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his counsel have sufficient time to prepare and give answers of the questions noted in the questionnaire afier elapse of a several hours, they were not willing to get the statement of the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi recorded in the court and accused cannot be allowed under the law to frustrate / hamper the trial by his conduct in any way. The counsel of the accused should have not come to seck ‘adjournment but to participate in the proceedings without dilatory practices, A perusal of the record would reveal that on 29.01.2024, the Proceedings were adjourned to 30.01.2024 for the recording of statements of the accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C, On 30.01.2024 the Court provided questionnaires to both the accused for their statements ws 342 Cr.P.C. Their counsel namely Mr. Chaudhry Zaheer Abbas, Mr. Usman Riaz Gill, and Sardar Shahbaz Khosa were also present in the Court at that time. Despite the court's repeated efforts, the accused consistently delayed the process. It took numerous prompts from the Court side before the defence agreed to respond, yet the submission was incomplete, only covering the Tesponse for accused Bushra Imran, with no submission for accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi.” ‘The count, in an effort to advance the proceedings, scheduled a session at 9 a.m on 31.01.2024 ensuring all parties were aware, However, on 31.01.2024, there was complete absence of the counsel of the accused as well as accused Busha Imran, When accused Imran Abmed Khan Niazi was eventually brought to the court. He did what is narrated above, Certain authorities which are relating to such a situation are noted below for ready reference; In Dawarka Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1947 pat. 107 the court observed that: “13, The primary matter to be ensured under Section 342, CrP opportunity to explain the vital matters in evidence against shim, but it must not be forgotten that, if he fails or refuses to give an explanation, itis of equal importance that his failure or refusal should be made abundantly apparent on the face is that the accused has been given a proper ofthe record, in order that the inference against him thereon, authorized by Section 342, may be well-founded." Similarly, in Sher Jang Vs. Emperor, AIR 1931 Lah. 178, it was observed by the court that: “Now, although the prosecution case has to be judged on its ‘merits, an accused person cannot defeat the ends of justice by merely refusing to answer questions, Section 342 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that the Court may draw such inferences Jrom the accused's refusal, to answer questions as it thinks Just lus, (h) to Section 114, Evidence Act, shows that if a ‘man refused to answer a question, which he is not compelled ‘0 answer a question, which he is not compelled to answer by law, the court may presume that the answer if given would be unfavourable to hin.” In Rameshan v. Experor, AIR 1936 Nag. 147, the court observed: “6. It is now complained that this point was not put to the accused when he was not put to the accused when he was being examined and so he has been prejudiced... 1 find that when the Court wanted to put to put questions, the accused practically refused to answer them, saying that he would give ‘is statement later on and that he had nothing to say beyond what he stated in his written statement filed that day. In these (5) CamScannera Circumstances it would have been useless for the Court to Persist with detailed questions.” yuddin 29 Uf the os ‘rat to speak of operating The Supreme Co: PLD 1979 SC 53: In ur, AIR 1925 Pet. 414, the coun note ed is defended by Counsel who advises him . The scheme of (S. 342 Cr.P.C) has no chance tof Pakistan noted in judgment reported as “163. although (S 342 Cr.P.C) is a mandatory provision, yet its compliance is dependent upon the conduct of the accused himself. In the present case, the accused frustrated these by bepconing the proceedings and refusing 10 juestions gut to him relating 10 his defence. Several judgments hae been cited ... vo shora that it may be useless for the Court to persist with the detailed questioning if the accused preferred io te reticent. In fa of the conduct displayed by him. the Court would have been justified ‘not to ask any further questions." Association, exc, eral & Pervez Musharraf, etc., 2019 SCMR 1029, while satin “6. We conclude ts #2 Cr.P.C. enables the accused to explain circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, however ... if he voluntarily chooses not to ‘appear or join the proceedings, ke loses his right 10 such an explanation.” In the circumstances ofthe present case, this court has no option except to conclude the tial and decide the case on available material, Therefore, arguments of prosecution side are heard. Points for determination and findings thereon are noted below: 1. Non- Production of the Jewelry set by the accused: Through the call up letter dated 29.03.2023 by NAB, the accused Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi was asked to: “produce the ....... Toshakhana gifts for the price assessments / evaluation by the relevant technical experts”. ‘The said request was repeated vide call-up letters dated 12.06.2023, 16.06.2023, 22.06.2023, 23.06.2023, and 27.06.2023. Similarly, requests were made to accused Bushra Imran, through tii9 call-up letters dated 24.08.2023, 31.08.2023, 05.09.2023, 07.09.2023, 11.10.2023 and 08.12.2023, Both the accused refused to cooperate during the investigation and did not produce the Graff Jewelry set despite repeated requests, as demonstrated by the above-mentioned call-up letters. The Graff jewelry set constituted the best evidence in the case. It is settled law that when a party fails to bring the best available evidence in court, the courts are required to draw an adverse inference against such party. The same principle is found in Articles 129 of the Qanun- Shahdat Order. Illustration (g) to Article 129 states that when the evidence that could be produced is not produced, the court may presume that if such evidence was produced, it would have been unfavourable to the person withholding it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Jehangir v. Mst. Shams Sultana and others, 2022 SCMR 309 held as follows: "4. wu. When the best evidence is intentionally withheld, an adverse presumption ensues that if it was produced it would be against the person withholding it as per Article 129(@) of the Qanux-e-Shahdat, 1984." Similarly, in Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan, PLD 2022 SC 21, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held: “9, At this juncture, Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 is quite relevant under which court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, Inman conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. According to the illustrations highlighted for resonating the presumption, illustration (g) is quite relevant which illuminates "that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be un-favourable to the persons who withholds it”. “Adverse inference for nonproduction of evidence is one of the strongest presumptions known to law and the law allows it against the party who withholds the evidence...." 2. Non-deposit of the Graff Jewelry set in ToshakhatThe Graff Jewelry Set was not deposited in Toshakhana as Fequired under clause | of The Procedure for Acceptance and Disposal Of Gifls, 2018, The relevant record is produced by PW namely Bin Yameen as Exh.PW-4/2 to Exh.PW-4/13 and unequivocally stated that the Graff Jewelry Set was not deposited in Toshakhana Cabinet Division. PW-5 has stated that photograph is taken of every gifts received by dignitaries. Therefore, the photograph of Graff Jewelry Set is also available on official record, 3. Price assessment was made under influence / pressure of both the accused and the price assessment was not fair and transparent: PW-15 namely Mr. Sohaib Abbasi Private approved Appraiser has clearly stated that he was informed by Mr. Inamullah Shah (PW-14) to lessen the value of the Graff Jewelry Set which included Graff Jewelry Set, Necklace, Ring, Bracelet and Ear rings for the purpose of price assessment and he assessed the price as per their desires. The assessment was not transparent and fair. The actual value is much higher than that. Mr. Inamullah Shah (PW-14) has also stated that he used to meet Mr. Sohaib Abbasi (PW-15) and convey the instructions of Ex-Prime Minister Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his wife Bushra Imran in connection with the assessment of precious gifts as per their desires. In September 2020, a Graff Jewelry Set was received from Prince KSA by Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his wife. He was called by the Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his wife Bushra Imran to meet with the Private Appraiser and asked for undervalued assessment as they wanted to retain the said gifts and he conveyed the message of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his wife Bushra Imran to Private Appraiser Sohaib Abbasi at his office. PW-6 Rabia Samad (Appraising Officer Pakistan Custom) has stated that he simply relied upon the assessment report of Private Appraiser namely Sohaib Abbasi which report was received from Toshakhana staff. She did not inspected the gift items. She had not considered the brand Graff and specifications of the gift items. She has no expertise to assess the customized Toshakhana gift. The assessment of the gift was not included in her job descriptions, GB camscannern The assessment report was countersigned by PW-7 Azeem Manzoor (Principal Appraiser Pakistan Customs). He did not conduct independently any assessment but relicd upon the assessment made by the Private Appraiser Sohaib Abbasi (PW-15) and the assessment made by Rabia Samad (PW-6). ‘Thus, it is proved on record that price assessment was made under influence / pressure of both the accused and the price assessment was not fair and transparent 4. Actual price of the Graff set is much higher than assessed by the Private Appraiser and Government appraiser: PW-13 Imran Bashir is resident of Dubai and working with M/s Rainbow Impex FZE a registered company which deals with Jewelry and antique items. The said company was approached through Consulate General of Pakistan and he / PW-13 was assigned the duty for the assessment of jewelry set. He obtained specifications of items for the office. He searched market for that purpose and obtained input from dealers of diamond and from the outlet of the Graff Jewelry. He assessed the value of the Jewelry item in the light of input so received. His report is available as Exh.PW-2/4 duly signed by him. As per assessment the value of the Graff was found as US$19.492 million and Price of bracelet watch of BVLGARI USS 235000 (equivalent to Rs. 3,165,533,280/-). This assessment was made on the basis of specifications provided by Mr. Mohsin Habib Admin Assistant (PW- 10) at Consul General of Pakistan, Dubai office. Original Graff Jewelry Set was not produced at any stage of inquiry or investigation. That is hy the assessment made on the basis ofits specifications is acceptable and reliable in the circumstances of the case. Thus, itis established by the Prosecution that actual price of the Graff set was much higher than assessed by the Private Appraiser and Government Appraiser. 5. Misuse of authority / connivance of both the accused / gain through illegal means / misappropriation / refusal to provide information: It is established on the record that gift of Graff Jewelry Set was received by the accused Bushra Imran and the same was not deposited in Toshakhana contrary to the clause 1 of The Procedure For2 Acceptance and Disposal of | Gifs, 2018. Syed Inamullah Shah (Pw- 44) has clarified that he was instructed by both the accused to get price Assessment of the Graff Jewelry Set undervalued. PW-1$ Private Appraiser has categorically stated that Price assessment was not ‘ransparent and fhir. The same was made under the pressure of Syed Jnamullah Shah who had conveyed to him the instructions of both the Accused persons. He also categorically stated that the actual value of the Graff Jewelry ‘Sct was much higher, PW-6 Rabia Samad and PW- 7 Azeem Manzoor have also stated that they have not conducted an independent assessment rather they simply relied upon the price assessment of the gift made by the Private Appraiser (PW-15). Moreover, PW-13 stated that he conducted the price assessment on the basis of specification of Graff Jewelry Set provided by PW-10 Mohsin Habib, which remained unchallenged in cross examination and the Actual price is assessed by him is USS19.492 million equivalent to Rs. 3,165,533,280/- (@S1=Rs.162.4 on 16.10. 2020). The said PW Imran Bashir was engaged through Consulate General of Pakistan Dubai for the price assessment of gifts including Graff Jewelry Set, While as per the Procedure for the Acceptance and Disposal of Gifts, 2018, the ‘accused persons were required to deposit $0% of the assessed price, However, in order to retain this Graff Jewelry set, the accused persons have deposited only 9.031 million on the basis of undervalued price assessment conducted by the PW-15 Mr. Sohaib Abbasi, As per assessment conducted by PW-13 Mr. Imran Bashir, the accused persons Were required to further deposit Rs. 1573.72 million in addition to the amount already deposited against the retention of Graff Jewelry Set. Actually none of the accused had produced the gifts to the NAB as requisitioned by the 1.O through many Call up Notices during inquiry and investigation. On the basis of original gift, price assessment could have been conducted through other experts as well, In the above circumstances of the case, itis proved beyond any reasonable doubt that both the accused persons in connivance with each other by way of illegal means, misusing the position and power vested in the Office of the Prime Minister obtained monetary gain amounting CBcamscanner23 to Rs.1573.72 million, and caused a loss to the National Exchequer, and fraudulently misappropriated public property for personal gain and violated the Procedure For the Acceptance and Disposal of Gifts, 2018 read with the Rules of Business 1973. The accumulative effect of all the evidence produced against the accused is that the prosecution is succeeded to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubts. Thus, both the accused namely Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Bushra Imran are hereby convicted and sentenced to Fourteen (14) years rigors imprisonment each with fine of Rs. 787 million each under the offences define u/s 9(a)(iii)(iv)(vi) & (xii) of the NAO, 1999 and punishable w/s 10 of the NAO, 1999 and also under Sr. No. 2 of the schedule thereto. The fine is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. They are entitled to the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Announced: 31.01.2024 Judge, Accountability Court-1, Islamabad. (Camp Court at Central Jal, Adyala Rawalpindi). Certified that this judgment consists of (23) pages and each page is signed by the undersigned. Muhammad Bashir) Judge, Accountability Court-I, Islamabad. (Camp Court at Central Jail, Adyala Rawalpindi), [9 camSca