KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed an application questioning its jurisdiction to proceed with a 20-year-old appeal against conviction in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference following amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

A two-judge regular bench was hearing an application filed last year by Pervaiz Ahmed Dahri, who was sentenced to five years in prison by an accountability court in January 2006, stating that in the light of various amendments to NAO the SHC did not have jurisdiction to proceed with his appeal against conviction.

The applicant asked the bench to refer the matter to the appropriate agency, authority or department for further proceedings.

However, the bench comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Justice Syed Fiaz-ul-Hassan Shah observed that the conviction or acquittal, once recorded by a competent court, would not be open to reversal through an amendment to the law, but only by the next higher judicial forum on merits.

Bench dismisses application questioning court jurisdiction to hear 20-year-old appeal against conviction in graft case after NAB law amendments

It noted that the amendments essentially aimed to make the law more effective, fair and relevant and have nothing to do with the transactions already concluded.

The counsel for appellant argued that various amendments were made to the NAO in 2022-23 and among other changes, the words “of the value not less than five hundred million rupees” were inserted and effect of which took away jurisdiction from the NAB to investigate matters involving amounts less than Rs500 million.

The lawyer also submitted that by virtue of such amendments, the jurisdiction of the accountability court, including the high court, in NAB cases has been ousted as these amendments have been given retrospective effect.

The counsel further contended that the word “proceedings” occurring therein included appeals and the appeal was a continuation of the trial.

However, the NAB prosecutor opposed the plea and argued that all final orders, decisions or judgments passed by the court before the commencement of the amendments in question will remain in force.

The bench in its order noted that the legislature has not inserted the word “appeal” in the clause in question while conveying otherwise that all pending inquiries etc be transferred to the agencies concerned and omission of the word “appeal” was of paramount significance and therefore, did not seem accidental.

“When the legislature has specified all the relevant stages of criminal process starting from pending inquiries onwards, absence of reference to appeals is not without a well thought-out intention; and seems to aim at drawing attention to overall contour and effect of the amendments: applicable only when the adjudication in allegation is pending at any stage and not in the cases already decided,” it added

Referring to various judgements of the Supreme Court, the bench also said that the word “proceedings” has been understood to convey different meanings when employed in diverse contexts and it was not necessary that it has always been comprehended to convey a singular meaning like pending appeals.

About a contention of the appellant’s counsel regarding retrospective effect of these amendments from 1999, it said, “We may further say on this point in reply that the non obstante clause has been employed in clause (f) ibid which means that despite such retrospective effect, the final orders, decisions or judgments already rendered, unless reserved, by the competent forum would be considered protected, meaning thereby as if no amendment has been made as far as they are concerned.”

The bench further observed that the amendments essentially aimed to make the law more effective, fair and relevant and have nothing to do with the transactions already concluded before the amendments were made in the relevant law.

“The conviction or acquittal, once recorded by the competent court of law, would not be open to reversal through an amendment in the law, but by the next higher judicial forum on merits only”, it added

The bench noted that the appellate court has to appraise the entire evidence like the trial court, but independently and un-swayed by any finding recorded at trial on any particular fact and therefore, the concept of appeal as a continuation of a trial was quite distinct and cannot be pressed into service in the present context.

While dismissing the application, the bench observed that the appeal was pending for long and therefore, should be fixed for hearing on Feb 18 and asked the counsel for appellant to proceed with the matter on merits. as if no amendment has been made as far as they are concerned.”

The bench further observed that the amendments essentially aimed to make the law more effective, fair and relevant and have nothing to do with the transactions already concluded before the amendments were made in the relevant law.

“The conviction or acquittal, once recorded by the competent court of law, would not be open to reversal through an amendment in the law, but by the next higher judicial forum on merits only”, it added

The bench noted that the appellate court has to appraise the entire evidence like the trial court, but independently and un-swayed by any finding recorded at trial on any particular fact and therefore, the concept of appeal as a continuation of a trial was quite distinct and cannot be pressed into service in the present context.

While dismissing the application, the bench observed that the appeal was pending for long and therefore, should be fixed for hearing on Feb 18 and asked the counsel for appellant to proceed with the matter on merits.

Published in Dawn, February 6th, 2026