2026 P Cr. L J 1

 

2026 P Cr. L J 1

[Sindh]

Before Salahuddin Panhwar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

MUHAMMAD NASEER RAEES---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, and 4 others---

Respondents

Constitution Petition No. D-5497 of 2024, decided on 21st November,

2024.

(a) Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XL of 1958---

----Ss. 4 & 5---Jurisdiction of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption---Scope---

Special Judge issued directions against petitioner (Circle Officer

Anti-Corruption Establishment) for suspension, initiation of inquiry

and criminal prosecution for criminal intimidation, hindering court

proceedings and bribery---Violation of principle of natural justice---

Contention of the petitioner was that Special Judge Anti-Corruption

could not issue suspension of a civil servant in collateral

proceedings in a criminal matter, as his powers were limited while

trying offences relating to corruption within his designated

jurisdiction---Validity---Court in collateral proceedings cannot order

the suspension of a civil servant while directing the initiation of

departmental proceedings in a criminal case while it can

recommend an inquiry if misconduct is suspected and the decision

to suspend rests with the relevant authority---Special Judge Anti-

Corruption s role is limited in corruption matters and it cannot

directly order the suspension of civil servants for the simple reason

that a person being criticized by a Judge should be given a chance to

explain himself, however, the petitioner was not given that

opportunity, instead, his silence was interpreted as an admission of

guilt which factum needed through inquiry by the competent

authority as the petitioner placed on record certain documents

along with his memo. of petition to show his innocence about bail

bond obtained from the respondent for his appearance in Court and

the allegations levelled by the respondent required thorough probe

by the competent authority on the administrative side without being

influenced by the observation of the Trial Court in the impugned

order---High Court ordered removal of harmful remarks against the

petitioner, subject to the independent inquiry of the allegations by

the official respondents, without being influenced by the

observation of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, after providing a meaningful hearing to the parties concerned---Constitutional

petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Imad Ali Khawaja v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 2057 rel.

(b) Administration of justice---

----Issuance of pejorative remarks and unjust criticism by Court---

Duty of Court---Principally, Courts should avoid pejorative remarks

against non-parties and unjust criticism of parties; vilifying them

should also be avoided---Judges can criticize relevant matters and

witnesses but should avoid criticizing those in official positions

without valid justification, that is subject to jurisdiction---Presiding

Officer of the Court must give a person the opportunity to explain

condemnatory facts before criticizing him/her---This is especially

important for public servants, who should be given a chance to

defend themselves before being criticized---Criticizing someone

without giving them a chance to respond is unfair and may be

considered outside the judge's jurisdiction---Judges must be

independent and also fair and restrained---They should only

criticize people if they have a chance to defend themselves if there

is evidence to support the criticism, and if it is necessary for the

case---Judicial pronouncements should be sober, moderate and

reserved.

Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, PHC PLD 2019 SC 719 and Aijaz Ahmed v.

The State PLD 2021 SC 752 rel.

Ayatullah Khawaja for Petitioner.

Sagheer Abbasi and Irshad Ahmed Shaikh, A.A.G. along with Asif Ali

Rajper, Assistant Director ACE West Zone.

Ali Hyder Saleem, APG.

Shehryar for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Date of hearing: 21st November, 2024.

ORDER

ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.---Petitioner was/is a Circle Officer of

Provincial Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) Hyderabad and has

impugned the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Special

Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi in Special Case No. 29/2020

(Re-The State v. Bhashani Multan and others,) whereby the Presiding

officer ordered the suspension and criminal prosecution of the

petitioner for criminal intimidation, hindering Court proceedings, and

bribery. The Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh was also directed to initiate an inquiry against him. An excerpt of the order is

reproduced as under:-

Today, Mr. Farhan Ali Jatoi Mukhtiarkar, Qasimabad, Hyderabad

appeared who is one of the witness in subject title case and so

also in Special Case No. 16 of 2020 at that time, he was

Mukhtiarkar Bin Qasim Town. Due to non-appearance, this

Court issued bailable warrant of arrest on 04.10.2024 for the

appearance in this Court. Mr. Farhan Ali Jatoi informed that

Circle Officer of ACE Hyderabad namely Naseer Ahmed Sheikh

received One Lac Rupees cash from him as a bribe amount

instead of he must have to take surety bond in the sum of Rs.

25,000/- as directed by this court. Circle officer also admitted in

bail bond that the amount that was given will be forfeited if he

failed to appear in Court. This statement amounts to an

admission that Circle Officer received cash amount from the

witness.

In view of above, the statement of Farhan Ali Jatoi reflects that

Circle Officer ACE Hyderabad with Criminal intimidation and

just to create hindrance in Court proceedings and forcibly took

bribe amount in the name of this Court. Director Anti-

Corruption Establishment, Sindh is hereby directed to

immediately suspend the Circle Officer and initiate Criminal

Proceedings against the Circle Officer and recommend his case

for issue major penalty not below the suspension/removal from

service by adopting the procedure. Bailable warrant issued by

this court is hereby withdrawn as he surrendered in this court

and request mercy. Director Anti-Corruption Establishment is

hereby directed to submit compliance report within 02 weeks. A

copy of this order shall be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of

Sindh and Chairman Enquiries and Anti-Corruption

Establishment for information and necessary action Orders

accordingly.

2. Mr. Ayatullah Khawaja, learned counsel for the petitioner argued

that the trial court's order was based on a misunderstanding and

misconception and thus liable to be set aside. He claimed that the bail

bond was proof of respondent No.5, paying the bail amount, not a

bribe as such the petitioner cannot be saddled with penalty/criminal

action. The counsel highlighted the petitioner's qualifications and

career, arguing that he was unfairly accused of bribe and suspended

from service without a hearing; consequently, the department of ACE

has acted upon the direction of the trial court and issued him the show

cause notice. He emphasized that the trial Court cannot issue a

suspension of a civil servant in collateral proceedings in a criminal matter. He emphasized that the trial Court cannot step in the shoes of

the competent authority and orders the suspension of a civil servant

while directing the initiation of departmental proceedings without

hearing/evidence. The learned counsel requested this court to remove

the strictures and directions issued against the petitioner, arguing that

these violate the principles established in different pronunciations of

the Supreme Court. He pointed out the specific strictures and

directions, was/is based on the statement of respondent No.5

Mukhtiarkar who is biased against the petitioner as the petitioner

served upon him the notice of the trial court and obtained bail bond as

directed by the trial court who felt humiliated and complaint to the

trial court to the effect that the petitioner is involved in criminal

intimidation, obstruction of court proceedings, and bribery and the

trial court without unearthing the truth acted upon his assertions and

directed severe action against the petitioner which was/is uncalled for

and the Director of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh was

ordered to suspend the petitioner from service and initiate criminal

proceedings against the him by recommending a major penalty

(suspension or removal from service). He emphasized that publicly

reprimanding civil servants by the courts, harms public trust, and

negatively impacts the civil servants morale and confidence. He

argued that this practice is not suitable under the law. He further

asserted that the powers of a Special Judge Anti-Corruption

(Provincial) are limited under the relevant provincial laws. These

powers include trying offenses related to corruption within designated

jurisdiction as such he cannot issue any such direction in criminal

matters by taking action outside of the main criminal case, beyond the

limits of the law. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3. The learned Law Officers assisted by the learned counsel for

Respondent No.5 controverted the above contentions opposed this

petition and argued that the Anti-Corruption Establishment had

already taken action against the petitioner by suspending him and

initiating disciplinary proceedings. He claimed that the court's order to

halt further action was received after these actions were taken. They

requested the dismissal of the petition.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record with their assistance.

5. The issues for determination in the present proceeding are

whether the learned trial court has valid justification to direct the

Director Anti-Corruption Establishment to suspend the services of the

petitioner and initiate the criminal/departmental proceeding without a

hearing. And whether the trial court's powers are limited to

corruption cases within its jurisdiction and cannot take actions outside the main case or beyond the law's limits, such as issuing directions in

criminal matters.

6. To address the claims, we will first examine the facts of the case.

The petitioner, a Circle officer, was tasked with serving warrants on a

witness, Farhan Ali Jatoi. After serving the warrants and releasing

Jatoi on bail, the petitioner claims to have returned the bail amount to

the Malkhana. However, Mukhtiarkar Jatoi alleges that the petitioner

received a bribe of Rs. 100,000 not as a bail bond. The trial court, based

on Jatoi's allegations, passed an adverse order against the petitioner by

treating it as an admission of bribery and criminal intimidation. The

Director of the Anti-Corruption Establishment was ordered to Suspend

the Circle Officer and Initiate criminal proceedings against the

petitioner by recommending a major penalty (suspension or removal),

which triggered the cause to the petitioner to approach this Court.

7. Petitioner has refuted the claim of respondent No.5 with the

narration that the bailable warrants of arrest were served upon

Respondent No.5 and he was allowed to be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bond such cash amount as disclosed in the warrants

was deposited in Malkhana and such Roznama Entry was kept in the

police station; that on 23.10.2024 when both cases were fixed before

the trial court, petitioner could not put his appearance due to his

official engagement at Provincial Anti-corruption Court at Hyderabad

and on his behalf, police constable Atif Ali was assigned the duties to

attend the trial court to submit warrant of execution report along with

collected bail amount, however, the constable could only submit

warrant execution report and returned the bail money with him and

deposited in Malkhana. In the intervening period, Respondent No.5

made allegations against the petitioner that he had received Rs.

100,000/- cash from him as a bribe and the learned Presiding Officer

drew adverse inference against the petitioner and passed the

impugned order dated 23.10.2024. Such documentary proof has been

annexed with the memo. of petition.

8. Principally, Courts should avoid pejorative remarks against non-

parties and unjust criticism of parties, vilifying them should also be

avoided. Judges can criticize relevant matters and witnesses but

should avoid criticizing those in official positions without valid

justification that is subject to jurisdiction. A presiding officer of the

Court must give a person the opportunity to explain condemnatory

facts before criticizing him/her. This is especially important for public

servants, who should be given a chance to defend themselves before

being criticized. Criticizing someone without giving them a chance to

respond is unfair and may be considered outside the judge's

jurisdiction. Judges must be independent, but also fair and restrained. They should only criticize people if they have a chance to defend

themselves if there is evidence to support the criticism, and if it is

necessary for the case. Judicial pronouncements should be sober,

moderate, and reserved. On the aforesaid proposition, we are guided

by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Nusrat Yasmin v.

Registrar, PHC, (PLD 2019 SC 719) and Aijaz Ahmed v. State (PLD 2021

SC 752).

9. The Court in collateral proceedings could not order the

suspension of a civil servant while directing the initiating of

departmental proceedings in a criminal case in terms of the ratio of

the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Imad Ali

Khawaja v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2057), while it can

recommend an inquiry if misconduct is suspected, the decision to

suspend rests with the relevant authority, therefore this court

disagrees with the findings of the trial court to the extent that the

Circle Officer admitted in the bail bond that he received cash from the

witness and this was/is considered an admission of guilt for the reason

that an admission of guilt must be clear and unambiguous. Even in a

plea guilty case, a trial should commence to ensure the accused

understands the charges and the consequences of his plea. This

process allows for the court to verify the voluntariness of the plea and

to ensure due process is followed. In law, suspension should be a

discretionary decision based on specific factors, such as the officer's

potential influence on the inquiry. Instead of observing and potentially

prejudicing the case, the matter should be left open for the competent

authority to investigate the conduct of the officials.

10. This court emphasizes that the Court's role is limited in such

matters and that it cannot directly order the suspension of civil

servants for the simple reason that a person being criticized by a judge

should be given a chance to explain himself. However, in this case, the

petitioner was not given that opportunity, instead, his silence was

interpreted as an admission of guilt which factum needs through

inquiry by the competent authority as the petitioner has placed on

record certain documents along with his memo. of petition to show his

innocence about bail bond obtained from the respondent No.5 for his

appearance in court and the allegations levelled by the respondent

No.5 requires thorough probe by the competent authority on the

administrative side without being influenced by the observation of the

trial court in the impugned order.

11. This court order for the removal of harmful remarks against the

petitioner, subject to the independent inquiry of the allegations by the

official respondents, without being influenced by the observation of

the trial court, after providing a meaningful hearing to the parties concerned. The remark recorded above shall not prejudice the case of

either party.

12. This Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

SA/M-16/Sindh Order accordingly.