DECEMBER 9, 2022

Prosecutors are Duty-Bound to Disclose Evidence favorable to the Defense, irrespective of whether it was recorded during Inquiry or Investigation --- Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed NAB Petition with Cost

post-img

Prosecutors are Duty-Bound to Disclose Evidence favorable to the Defense, irrespective of whether it was recorded during Inquiry or Investigation --- Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed NAB Petition with Cost

 

Islamabad 13-12-2024: The Lahore High Court (LHC), in a significant decision, dismissed a writ petition filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging an Accountability Court’s order that directed the provision of inquiry-phase documents and statements to the accused in a corruption reference. The Lahore High Court imposed costs of Rs. 200,000 on NAB, emphasizing the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan.

 

NAB filed a reference under Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO), alleging corruption by two respondents, including prominent political figures. During trial proceedings, the Accountability Court directed NAB to provide the accused with previous statements of witnesses, including those recorded during the inquiry phase. NAB challenged this decision, arguing that such disclosures were not required under the NAO or Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

 

The NAB contended that the accused were only entitled to statements recorded during the investigation phase under Section 161 Cr.P.C., not during the inquiry phase. The accused argued that withholding such statements violated their right to a fair trial, as they needed access to exculpatory evidence for their defense.

 

The Lahore High Court rejected NAB’s arguments, laying down key legal principles:

  1. The Court reaffirmed that Article 10A guarantees the accused the right to access all relevant materials, including inquiry-phase documents, to ensure fairness.
  2. Prosecutors are duty-bound to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, irrespective of whether it was recorded during inquiry or investigation.
  3. While inquiry and investigation are distinct stages, the findings of an inquiry become accessible once it transitions into an investigation under Section 18(c) of NAO.
  4. Statements made by witnesses before being granted pardons must be disclosed, as they constitute “previous statements” under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

 

The Court highlighted the supremacy of the NAO as a special law and held that its provisions override conflicting general laws like the Cr.P.C. It criticized NAB’s reluctance to provide the documents, noting that selective disclosure violates principles of justice and transparency.

 

The Lahore High Court dismissed NAB’s petition, directing that:

  1. The accused are entitled to the requested documents and statements for preparing their defense.
  2. The prosecution cannot withhold exculpatory evidence or approvers’ statements.

NAB must pay costs of Rs. 200,000 for filing a frivolous petition.

Powered by Froala Editor

Related Post