Dar’s surety giver: IHC stays attaching of movable property for a day

Quddusi’s counsel states Dar is in UK for cardiac treatment and it is not possible to procure his attendance


Our Correspondent December 20, 2017
PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday stayed the process of attaching movable property of former finance minister Ishaq Dar’s surety giver, Ahmed Ali Quddusi, for one day.

A division bench, comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, restrained the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from attaching Quddusi’s property till December 20 (today) while hearing his petition.

Court summons Dar, surety-giver on 14th

Quddusi has requested the court to set aside several orders of the accountability court directing to initiate process of attachment and sale of his movable property. The court order came during proceeding of a reference filed by NAB against Dar.

Quddusi had submitted surety amounting to Rs5 million to ensure that Dar, who was recently declared a proclaimed offender, would appear before the court to face reference accusing him of amassing assets beyond his known sources of income.

On December 11, the Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir had ordered to attach movable properties of the surety giver for failing to produce Dar.

The court order had revealed that Qadoosi “stood surety out of benevolence and accused is beyond his reach”. The court order had said, “He has not shown acceptable and reasonable causes as to why the penalty should not be paid by him,” adding that he was not entitled to any leniency.

Dar's surety-giver seeks three weeks to present finance minister before court

Quddusi’s counsel stated that Dar went to UK for cardiac treatment and “it is not possible for the guarantor to procure his attendance under such circumstances”.

While seeking interim relief, the counsel prayed the court to suspend the orders and restrain them from issuing any warrant or attaching or selling any movable property of Quddusi.

He told the court that the orders were passed in complete oblivion and disregard of the provisions as contained in Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. He said, “Imposition of penalty is uncalled for and not legally justified.”

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

E-Publications

Most Read