Petitions filed: Dar asks IHC to set aside indictment order
Requests that accountability court’s trial be stayed till filing of NAB’s final reference
Dar appearing before accountability court on Sep 27 PHOTO: SABAH
ISLAMABAD:
Finance Minister Ishaq Dar has challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) the indictment order of an accountability court, requesting it to set aside the order and stay the trial till the filing of the final reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
In line with the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Panamagate case, NAB had filed a reference in an accountability court in Islamabad which on Sep 27 indicted Dar and directed the prosecution to start producing witnesses and evidence from Oct 4 [tomorrow].
In the reference, NAB had alleged that the finance minister had acquired assets and ‘pecuniary interests’ and resources – beyond his known sources of income – in his own name and in the name of his dependents of an approximate amount of Rs831.678 million. The court had later indicted Dar.
Ishaq Dar indicted over corruption
However, in two separate petitions filed on Monday, Dar’s counsels requested the IHC that Dar might be given adequate opportunity to raise objection to framing of charges and its content before calling and recording of the prosecution witnesses. The IHC is expected to take up the petitions today [Oct 3].
The counsels said that while the court had ordered summoning of prosecution witnesses for recording of evidence, a copy of the charge sheet had not yet been provided to the petitioner. They maintained that the impugned order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record.
The counsels said the petitioner appeared before the accountability court on Sept 25 when copies of the reference in 23 volumes were supplied to him.
On Sept 27, the counsels said, petitioner filed an application before the court for postponing the framing of charges on the ground that framing of charge was not possible before seven-day time after supplying of copies to the accused under the law.
Nawaz Sharif's indictment proceedings adjourned
The court, however, dismissed the application saying the law mandates framing of charge within seven days of supply of document to the accused and not seven days after supply of documents. The counsels said the accountability court’s order was illegal and unlawful.
According to Section 265-C of the CrPC, a copy of the investigation report and documents are to be provided to the accused “not later than seven day before the commencement of trial,” they noted.
It is evident, they said, there has to be a minimum gap of seven days between the supply of documents to the accused and framing of charge. He said the judge, while rejecting the application, totally misconstrued the provision and the order was manifestly illegal.
“The framing of charge without observing mandatory provision of law is a breach of principle of fair trial as guaranteed by Constitution,” a petition read.
In the applications, the counsels requested the court to set aside the order so that the petitioner may be given adequate opportunity to raise objection to the framing of charge and its content before calling and recording of the prosecution witnesses.
Finance Minister Ishaq Dar has challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) the indictment order of an accountability court, requesting it to set aside the order and stay the trial till the filing of the final reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
In line with the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Panamagate case, NAB had filed a reference in an accountability court in Islamabad which on Sep 27 indicted Dar and directed the prosecution to start producing witnesses and evidence from Oct 4 [tomorrow].
In the reference, NAB had alleged that the finance minister had acquired assets and ‘pecuniary interests’ and resources – beyond his known sources of income – in his own name and in the name of his dependents of an approximate amount of Rs831.678 million. The court had later indicted Dar.
Ishaq Dar indicted over corruption
However, in two separate petitions filed on Monday, Dar’s counsels requested the IHC that Dar might be given adequate opportunity to raise objection to framing of charges and its content before calling and recording of the prosecution witnesses. The IHC is expected to take up the petitions today [Oct 3].
The counsels said that while the court had ordered summoning of prosecution witnesses for recording of evidence, a copy of the charge sheet had not yet been provided to the petitioner. They maintained that the impugned order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record.
The counsels said the petitioner appeared before the accountability court on Sept 25 when copies of the reference in 23 volumes were supplied to him.
On Sept 27, the counsels said, petitioner filed an application before the court for postponing the framing of charges on the ground that framing of charge was not possible before seven-day time after supplying of copies to the accused under the law.
Nawaz Sharif's indictment proceedings adjourned
The court, however, dismissed the application saying the law mandates framing of charge within seven days of supply of document to the accused and not seven days after supply of documents. The counsels said the accountability court’s order was illegal and unlawful.
According to Section 265-C of the CrPC, a copy of the investigation report and documents are to be provided to the accused “not later than seven day before the commencement of trial,” they noted.
It is evident, they said, there has to be a minimum gap of seven days between the supply of documents to the accused and framing of charge. He said the judge, while rejecting the application, totally misconstrued the provision and the order was manifestly illegal.
“The framing of charge without observing mandatory provision of law is a breach of principle of fair trial as guaranteed by Constitution,” a petition read.
In the applications, the counsels requested the court to set aside the order so that the petitioner may be given adequate opportunity to raise objection to the framing of charge and its content before calling and recording of the prosecution witnesses.