Contempt of court: SC directs Riaz to stay in Pakistan, appear for hearings

SC declines Riaz's counsel's request to allow him to go outside Pakistan for medical treatment.


Web Desk June 28, 2012

ISLAMABAD: Real estate tycoon Malik Riaz, along with his lawyer senior advocate Dr Abdul Basit, appeared before the Supreme Court on Thursday for the hearing of a contempt case against him, Express News reported.

The court took notice of the June 12 news conference during which Riaz hurled serious allegations against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his son Arsalan Iftikhar.

Dr Basit prayed before the three-member bench, headed by Jusice Shakirullah Jan, that Riaz, due to his health conditions, could not appear in the court for the hearing and that he should be allowed to go out of the country for medical treatment.

The petitioner, Arshad Gujjar, who had filed an application in the court to place Riaz on Exit Control List (ECL), argued that if he is allowed to move out of the country, chances are that he would not come back.

The judicial bench declined Dr Basit’s request and directed Riaz to appear before the court for the hearing of his case.

Dr Basit was told that if he wanted, he could also present evidence related to the Arsalan Iftikhar case.

A suo motu notice was taken against Dr Iftikhar and Riaz, following media reports that Iftikhar had received between Rs300 and Rs400 million from Riaz to influence judicial proceedings.

The hearing was adjourned till July 4, 2012.

COMMENTS (23)

imran | 11 years ago | Reply

Bahria town Welfare projects are showing there work and this is the Vital proof of Mr. Malik sincerity with the Country.

Raja | 11 years ago | Reply

"Health is Wealth", A great Quote which we can use at the moment because if someone is going somewhere for the better treatment so no one is allowed to raise fingers on it because no one can face a contempt without Health.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ