Ex-SECP chief’s petition for acquittal dismissed

Special Court adjourns the case till November 29 for recording evidence, statements of witnesses

ISLAMABAD: A special court dismissed on Friday an application of the suspended chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) Zafarul Haq Hijazi, seeking acquittal from a case pertaining to tampering with the records of companies owned by the Sharif family.

Hijazi through his counsel had filed an application under Section 249-A (power of magistrate to acquit accused at any stage) of the Criminal Procedure Code for summary disposal of the First Information Report (FIR) which was dismissed by the court.

Hijazi alleged that a conspiracy against him was being hatched as there was no evidence against him, noting that bail had been granted to him.

However, Special Court Judge Irum Niazi dismissed the application, observing there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Hijazi. The court subsequently adjourned the case till November 29 for recording evidence and statements of witnesses.

On October 27, the special court framed charges against Hijazi over tampering with the record of the Chaudhry Sugar Mills owned by the family of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Hijazi pleaded not guilty after Judge Niazi indicted him under Section 420 (cheating), Section 466 (forgery) and Section 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and section 5(2)(47) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

After the indictment, the special court of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) directed the prosecution to start producing evidence and witnesses from the next date of hearing. However, testimonies could not be recorded as Hijazi had filed the application.

The FIA booked Hijazi on the directives of the Supreme Court, which was hearing a case against the Sharif family in connection with the Panamagate case. The case was registered on July 10, 2017 and Hijazi was arrested on July 21. Hijazi has been on bail since August 8.

Previously, the counsel for Hijazi had argued that his client had become a victim of mala fide investigation by the prosecution, adding the charges framed under the FIR were motivated by enmity, malice and ulterior motives on the part of the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses.

The counsel argued in the petition that the allegations levelled against Hijazi were false and he never pressurised any official of the SECP to temper with the record, adding that the officials had tempered with the record themselves and accused Hijazi of pressurising them to do so.