Record tampering case: FIA produces no witnesses against Hijazi

Suspended SECP chief claims case is inspired by enmity

ISLAMABAD: The prosecution on Wednesday could not present witnesses before the Special Court in the Chaudhary Sugar Mills recording tampering case against Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP)’s suspended chairperson Zafar Hijazi.

The case was being heard at the Special Court under Judge Irum Niazi.

Although Hijazi and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) prosecutor appeared before the court, the prosecution could not present any witnesses despite being ordered to do so at the last hearing.



The special court adjourned the case till December 19, 2017.

During the previous hearing on November 9, 2017 the special court dismissed Hijazi’s application seeking acquittal in the case pertaining to tampering of the record of the Sharif family’s companies.

Hijazi had filed an application under section 249-a, for summary disposal of first information report [FIR], which was dismissed by the court.

Hijazi had alleged that this was a conspiracy against him and that there was no evidence against him, which was duly noted by the court and he was granted bail.

However, judge Niazi dismissed the application, observing that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Hijazi.

On October 27, the special court framed charges against Hijazi, which included 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. He had pleaded not guilty.



After the indictment, the FIA directed the prosecution to start producing evidence and witnesses for the next date of hearing.

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. He has been on bail since August 8.

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