IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry  
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
 
 
Crl. Misc. A.No. 486 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.22 of 2002 
(Implementation proceedings of judgment of this Court, passed in NRO case) 
And 
Suo Motu Case No.4 of 2010 and CMAs No.1080, 1238, 
1239 1253, 1254, 3222, 3242, 3545, 3873 & 4118 of 
2010  
Suo Motu Action regarding appointment of convicted person namely, 
Ahmed Riaz Sheikh (NRO Beneficiary) as Additional Director, FIA 
 
Adnan A. Khawaja 
Appelant (s) 
VERSUS 
The State 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Federation 
 
: Mr. Muneer A. Malik,  
Attorney General for Pakistan 
Mr. Dil Mohammad Alizai, DAG 
 
  
For the NAB 
: Mr. K.K.Agha, P.G 
Mr. Akbar Tarar, Additional P.G. 
 
  
For Ahmed Riaz Sheikh & 
Adnan A. Khawaja 
: Dr. A. Basit, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
For Ismail Qureshi & 
Khalid Ikhlaq Gillani 
: Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
 
For Malik Qayyum 
: Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
For Ahsan Raja 
: Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
Date of hearing 
: 26.06.2013 
 
ORDER 
  
 
We have taken this case for hearing and posed a 
question to learned counsel appearing for parties as well as 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 2 - 
 
the learned Prosecutor General, NAB about the functioning 
of the institution of NAB in absence of Chairman in terms of 
Section   34-A of NAO as his delegatees i.e. Regional DGs 
etc., are responsible for monitoring the investigations of the 
cases. Mr. K. K. Agha learned Prosecutor General, NAB 
stated that a learned five Members Bench of this Court vide 
its judgment dated 28.05.2013, passed in Const.P.No.73 of 
2011 (Ch. Nisar Ali Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan etc.), 
had allowed 30 days time to the Government to make fresh 
appointment without further 
loss 
of time, therefore, 
appointment of the Chairman, NAB has to take place on or 
before 30.06.2013. On this, we have communicated to the 
learned Attorney General through the learned Deputy 
Attorney General that he should make statement after 
soliciting instructions from the concerned functionaries. 
Learned 
Attorney 
General 
appeared 
and 
stated 
that 
consultation process for the appointment of Chairman, NAB, 
according to NAO, has commenced, which is likely to be 
completed as early as could be possible. In such view of the 
matter without dilating upon the merits of the instant case, 
we postpone its hearing.  
2. 
 
Learned Attorney General for Pakistan has filed 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.374/2013 along-with a 
letter dated 5th November, 2012 followed by the letter dated 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 3 - 
 
22nd November 2012 written by Justice (R) Yasmin Abbasey, 
the then Secretary, Govt. of Pakistan, Ministry of Law, 
Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad, contents of both 
the letters are reproduced hereunder:- 
 
 
 
 
“                   No.3 (156)/2007-Sol-II 
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the 5th November, 2012 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad……………………………………. 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General 
 
 
Geneva  
 
 
Switzerland 
 
 
 
Re: 
 
PP/11105/1997 and CP 289/97 
 
 
 
Dear Sir, 
 
 
This is with reference to the letter dated 22nd May 
2008 addressed by Malik Mohammad Qayyum, the then 
Attorney General of Pakistan to Mr. Daniel Zappelli, 
Attorney Genera, Geneva, Switzerland. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In view of the direction given by the Supreme 
Court of Pakistan in Paragraph 178 (copy attached as 
Annex-I) of its judgment dated 16th December 2009 in 
the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan, reported as PLD 2010 
SC 265, the aforesaid letter is hereby withdrawn and may 
be treated as never written and therefore, revival of 
requests, status and claims, is sought.  
 
This is without prejudice to the legal rights and 
defences of the Presidents/Heads of State which may be 
available under the law, constitution and international 
law. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
Sd/- 
Justice (R) Yasmin Abbasey 
                         Secretary” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
              No. F.3 (156)/2007-Sol-II 
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad 22nd November, 2012 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr Nicholas Jeanding Avocate 
Fontanet et associes 
25-Grand rue  
Case postate 3200 
Ch 1211, Geneve 3  
 
 
Switzerland 
 
 
 
 
Re: 
PP/11105/1997 and CP 289/97 and related proceedings. 
 
 
 
 
Dear Sir, 
 
 
Please refer to our instructions and the letter dated 5th 
November, 2012 sent to the General Attorney of Geneva, please 
explain the position of Government of Pakistan to the General 
Attorney of Geneva which is summarized hereinbelow in order to 
simplify the approach of the case before him.  
 
1. At the outset I must state that the Head of State viz 
President 
of 
Pakistan 
enjoys 
complete 
and 
absolute 
protection and immunity under Article 248 (2) of the 
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 (copy attached as Annex-1) as 
well as International Law, which is neither being waived nor 
lifted.  
2. Requests for mutual legal assistance was made by Senator 
Saif-ur-Rehman, 
the 
then 
Chairman 
of 
Ehtesab 
(Accountability) Bureau and Chaudhry Muhammad Farooq, 
the then Attorney General of Pakistan through various letters 
written in 1997 without permission from the Federal 
Government. Thus all these requests and letters stand on the 
same footing as those of the then Attorney General of 
Pakistan Malik Muhammad Qayyumm’s letter dated 22nd 
May 2008. Consequently all of the said requests and letters 
written 
by 
Senator 
Saif-ur-Rehman 
and 
Chaudhry 
Muhammad Farooq were and are illegal and have no legal 
effect and are hereby withdrawn by Government of Pakistan 
and may be treated as never have been written, keeping into 
view the dictum laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan in 
paragraph 177 and 178 of the Judgment in the case of Dr. 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 5 - 
 
Mobashar Hassan, dated 16th December 2009, reported as 
PLD 2010 SC 265 (Copy attached as Annex-II). 
3. I understand the order of closing of case passed by Mr. 
Daniel Zappelli former Attorney General of Geneva, on 25h 
August 2008 has also attained finality and under Swiss Law it 
cannot be re-opened for several legal reasons.  
4. Government of Pakistan understands that revival of status of 
civil party can take place only when there are pending 
criminal proceedings in Switzerland. Since no criminal 
proceedings are admittedly pending in Switzerland there are 
legal constraints and bar in such revival.   
5. Mutual legal assistance, as explained hereinabove, was never 
lawfully sought and in any event necessary documents and 
evidence have already been transmitted by the Swiss 
authorities to the Government of Pakistan and as such it has 
served its purpose. Furthermore the legal assistance 
requested in 1997 has been completely executed.  
6. Moreover since the Judgment was passed by the Supreme 
Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Mobashar Hassan dated 
16th December, 2009, much has happened factually and 
legally in Pakistan in respect of both the SGS and Cotecna 
cases in which Government of Pakistan was a civil party in 
Swiss proceedings. 
7. References filed by Ehtesab (Accountability) Bureau before 
Accountability Courts in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in SGS and 
Cotecna cases against Messrs A.R.Siddiqui, Asif Ali Zardar 
and others for which mutual legal assistance was sought by 
Government of Pakistan from Switzerland and in which 
regard Investigating Magistrate, Geneva from time to time, 
transmitted documents and evidence to Pakistan, have 
resulted in the acquittal of the main accused Mr. A.R. 
Siddiqui. Regarding Mr. Asif Ali Zardari the Accountability 
Courts have accepted that he enjoys complete and absolute 
immunity under Article 248 (2) of the Constitution of 
Pakistan, 1973. 
8. Even otherwise in the judgments in both the cases, the 
Honourable Judges have held that Mr. Asif Ali Zardari has not 
done any wrong doing has not committed any act of 
corruption and corrupt practices and that no loss was caused 
to the Government of Pakistan by the award of pre-
shipment. Inspection contract to SGS and Cotecna by 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 6 - 
 
Government of Pakistan, for which all legal/codal formalities 
were complied with. Thus, no offence or crime has been 
committed in Pakistan in respect of the award of the SGS 
and Cotecna contracts. Consequently, as no crime has been 
committed in Pakistan the alleged offence of money 
laundering, if any, under Swiss law does not seem to be 
applicable or attracted. (Copies of Judgments are attached as 
Annex-III and IV) 
9. In view of the foregoing Government of Pakistan would 
understand and appreciate to receive official confirmation 
about the inability of the Swiss authorities to revive 
Government of Pakistan’s status as civil party, mutual 
assistance and alleged claims. 
10.This finally brings to an end the matters/issues that had 
arisen and initiated in 1997.  
 
Yours sincerely, 
Sd/- 
Justice (R) Yasmin Abbasey 
                         Secretary” 
 
3. 
 
It is to be noted that letter dated 5th November, 
2012 has been issued by the Federal Government with the 
approval of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 
 
At this stage, second letter referred hereinabove, 
which has been written on behalf of the Government of 
Pakistan after letter dated 5th November, 2012 needs no 
comments being self explanatory, prima facie to form the 
opinion and necessity felt by the then Federal Government 
to enter into correspondence with Dr. Nicholas Jeanding, 
counsel/advocate of the Federation of Pakistan.   
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 7 - 
 
5. 
 
Reference of another correspondence between 
Judicial Authority, Public Ministry, Republican and Canton of 
Geneva and Mr. Nicholas Jeanding, attorney of the letter 
dated 4th February, 2013 is also necessary and relevant. He 
has also placed on record order of “non-entry into the 
subject”, dated 4th February, 2013 by the Judicial Authority 
of Republican Canton of Geneva, one of para relating to 
Abuse of Power and Ruling. For convenience same is 
reproduced below: - 
 
 
c)  
Abuse of Power 
“Swiss law establishes as a general principle the 
prohibition of the abuse of power, such as it arises from 
Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Civil Code. The criminal 
prosecution 
authorities 
are 
specifically 
required 
to 
conform thereto (CPC, Article 3, Subparagraph 2 b). In 
this 
case, 
the 
Republic 
of 
Pakistan’s 
procedures 
constitutes an abuse of power. Indeed, it consists of 
demanding 
resumption 
of 
the 
criminal 
procedure 
P/11105/1997, while maintaining that such resumption 
could not take place. It is a question of a procedure 
constituting venire contra facturm proprium, that is to say 
one of the traditional instances of an abuse of power.”    
RULING 
On these grounds, the Public Ministry: 
1. 
Decides not to enter into the subject of the facts 
referred to by the procedure P/11105/1997 (CPC, 
Article 310, Subparagraph 1 b and 323). 
2. 
States that the costs of proceedings shall be left to 
the charge of the State (CPC Articles 422 and 423, 
Subparagraph 1). 
3. 
Notifies this order: 
-the republic of Pakistan, i.e. for it Me Nicolas 
Jeandin, post box 3200, 1211 Geneva 3  
4. 
Communicates this order to: 
 
The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 8 - 
 
Geneva, 4 February 2013  
The Registrar 
 
 
The Public Prosecutor  
 
Lella Deloche Ramos 
 
 
Oliver JORNOT” 
 
6. 
 
Learned Attorney General stated that appeal 
against the order of the “non-entry into the subject” was 
maintainable 
within 
10 
days 
from 
the 
order 
noted 
hereinabove, relevant observation from the said order is 
reproduced hereinbelow: 
 
 
“The parties can attack the order of non-entry into the 
subject within the ten days before the appeal authority of 
recourse, that is to say the Criminal Appeal Court (CPC, Articles 
310, Subparagraph 2, and 322, Subparagraph 2 and LOJ 128, 
Subparagraph 1). The appeal must be justified and addressed in 
within (CPC, Article 396, Subparagraph 1). 
 
 
The parties have been made aware of the fact that the 
costs of the appeal proceedings shall be at their expense, if their 
appeal is inadmissible, if they withdrawn it or if they do not win 
the case (CPC, Article 428, Subparagraph 1). In certain 
conditions, the costs of the appeal proceedings could also be 
charged to an appellant that had obtained a more favourable 
decision (CPC, Article 428, Subparagraph 2). 
 
 
7. 
  
Learned Attorney General further stated that the 
above letter along-with the observations was not available 
on the official record. Further that order of non-entry into 
the subject was not communicated to the Government of 
Pakistan as per available record. He further stated that it is 
yet to be established that whether the entry into the subject 
has been communicated or not? However, vide letter dated 
20th June, 2013, he has been informed by the Secretary to 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 9 - 
 
the Prime Minister and no sooner this aspect was brought 
into his notice. He has authorized to the Secretary, Law and 
Justice & Human Rights vide letter of even date to file 
appeal and in pursuance whereof a local law firm M/s 
Python, Geneva has been engaged. He further stated that he 
has been instructed to bring above letters in the notice of 
this Court, whereas the competent authority (the Prime 
Minster) has already directed to conduct inquiry in this 
behalf as per contents of the letter dated 21.06.2013. 
Relevant paras are reproduced hereinbelow: - 
 
“(i) 
 
An appeal in the case shall immediately be filed 
before the appropriate court in Switzerland by Ministry of Law, 
Justice & Human Rights for which it shall engage services of a 
lawyer in Switzerland before the appeal period expires on 23rd 
June, 2013 and 
 
 
 
(ii) 
 
A Two-Member Enquiry Committee comprising of 
Mr. Sami Saeed, Secretary, Cabinet Division and Mr. Aftab 
Sultan, Director General, Intelligence Bureau, Government of 
Pakistan, is constituted to look into the matter of missing record 
and documents of this case from the Ministry of Law, Justice & 
Human Rights, delay in communication of decision of “the Order 
of Non-entry into the subject” issued by the Judicial Authority in 
Geneva on 04.02.2013 and subsequent delay, if any, in the 
offices of Ambassador of Pakistan in Switzerland and Ministry of 
Law, Justice & Human Rights, in communication of these facts to 
the Prime Minister between 13.06.2013, when it was first 
brought to the notice of Ambassador of Pakistan in Switzerland 
to 20.06.2013. The Committee shall furnish its report within a 
period of two weeks, positively.”  
 
8. 
 
Let the Committee constituted by the Prime 
Minister return its findings and share it with us through the 
Crl.M.A.No.486/2010 in Crl.Crl.A.No.22/02 and SMC No.4/2010 etc. 
- 10 - 
 
learned Attorney General. On having received the same 
further appropriate proceedings as envisaged under the law 
shall be initiated.  
9. 
 
Adjourned for a date to be fixed by office after two 
weeks.  
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad 
Judge 
26.06.2013 
*Rabbani* 
Judge