The division bench of PHC Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Younis Taheem also forwarded the case to the accountability court to hear it afresh.
When the hearing commenced, Shah’s counsels Barrister Zahoorul Haq and Barrister Waqar Ali told the court the National Accountability Bureau arrested the petitioner in August 2015 on charges of accumulating assets worth millions by misusing his authority.
Barrister Haq said the petitioner, during his confinement, offered to return Rs285 million under the plea bargain agreement. He added, “The offer was approved by the NAB chairman and an application was filed at the accountability court for final approval.”
He told the bench that the accountability court returned the application with some objections and suggested attaching some documents to complete it. He argued the requirements were complete, but the court again returned the application stating otherwise.
Barrister Haq maintained NAB filed the application for the third time, but the court raised objections and the petitioner also filed a separate application to some of NAB’s questions.
“The court dismissed the application and directed the petitioner to answer the questions,” Haq stated. He contended that the accountability court dismissed the plea bargain agreement after the petitioner submitted answers to the questions and directed NAB to file another reference within 15 days.
He argued that raising questions over the agreement and the order to file another reference by the court were against regulations. He argued the accountability court’s observation on the stamp and the stamp paper, which was declared fake, was beyond its jurisdiction.
Barrister Haq said, “It is the Federal Board of Revenue’s responsibility to check if tax has been paid on a loan worth Rs120 million and not of the court.” He pointed out Rs91.7 million of the decided amount under the plea bargain has already been paid, while bank guarantees are also provided for the remainder.
“The accountability court’s responsibility is to check if the agreed amount is paid or not. The court ordering an investigation into the matter would be a violation of NAB’s law.”
NAB Deputy Prosecutor General Jamil Saraf said the plea bargain was an agreement between the suspect and the bureau and an application was submitted in the court which was not accepted.
He said the suspect confessed to his crime before the court in an affidavit and the plea bargain was his punishment. He questioned the legal status of another reference being filed.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 23rd, 2016.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ