SHC orders builder accused of defrauding citizens to reach settlements with affected persons
Directs allocating Rs70 million for paying all the defrauded citizens on account of settlements
PHOTO: FILE
KARACHI:
The Sindh High Court (SHC) has ordered that settlements be reached between builder Sikandar Abdul Kareem, accused of defrauding 600 citizens in the name of Silver Sands project - a housing scheme in Clifton, and the affected parties. The court also directed that a report be submitted after the settlements were reached, within two weeks.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Ahmed Ali Shaikh and Justice Omar Sial, issued these directives while hearing Kareem's bail plea on Wednesday.
During the hearing, the counsel for the accused informed the court that notices seeking settlements had been issued to 22 citizens, of whom only seven had responded.
At this, the court remarked, "Would you be in a position to say that you were deprived of Rs2.5 million 25 to 30 years after the incident?"
'Tax machinery incapable of prosecuting fraud cases'
The counsel for the accused, however, maintained that the remaining affected persons hadn't approached Kareem for a settlement.
"How [then] do we reach a settlement with them?" he asked, adding that the builder had reached settlements with five of the affected citizens. Some of them have been paid Rs1.5 million, while others, Rs2 million.
In response, the court directed the counsel to allocate Rs70 million for repaying all the defrauded citizens on account of settlements. Further rebuking the counsel, the court asked, "What about those who paid [Kareem] Rs2.5 million?" and added that "they deserve to be repaid at least Rs10 million."
People in this city never come in direct contact with the actual builders but their front men, the court commented, directing that settlements be reached as soon as possible. It also sought a report on the matter after the settlements are finalised, within two weeks, and adjourned the hearing till January 15.
Petroleum products' price hike
Meanwhile, another bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Agha Faisal sought a counter reply from the petitioner, following the submission of the Ministry of Energy's reply over a plea challenging the rise in the prices of petroleum products.
The plea, filed by Iqbal Haider, states that the prices of petroleum products have been increased without the parliament's approval. It compares Finance Department officials to "International Monetary Fund officials", holding them responsible for "destroying the economy." The plea mentions that the rates of petroleum products will be increased further on June 1, 2020.
According to the petition, the rates were increased even when the matter was under trial in the court, which was akin to challenging the autonomy of the judiciary. It states that inflation has gripped the country as a consequence of the rise in the prices of petroleum products, adding that "the court should have been taken into confidence before the prices were increased."
The Ministry of Energy has submitted a reply to the plea, attributing the price hike to the increase in the rates of petroleum products in the international market. It states that the increase in prices does not tally with the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority's recommendations and have only been increased by 50% of the suggested hike, on Prime Minister Imran Khan's directives.
The increase during the months of March and April was distinctly less than that experienced in the international market, the ministry's reply mentions. It further informs the court that the parliament has given approval for increasing petroleum products' prices by Rs30, as part of the budget, adding that despite this, the increase in the prices has been kept at the bare minimum.
Journalists register FIR against suspect for fraud
Following the submission of the Ministry of Energy's reply, the court directed the petitioner to submit a counter reply. It also sought details about the mechanism for increasing petroleum products' prices from the Ministry of Energy and adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period of time.
Hearing transferred
In another case, the bench comprising Justice Shaikh and Justice Sial transferred the hearing of a plea challenging Pakistan Peoples Party MNA Syed Khursheed Shah's release on bail to SHC's Sukkur bench. The plea seeks the annulment of the accountability court's decision to release Shah, terming it "against the law."
An accountability court in Sukkur had ordered Shah's release, stating that according to section 24(d) of the NAB ordinance, an accused cannot be kept under arrest for more than 90 days if a reference has not been filed against the person. It further remarked that an accused can also not be kept in custody if there was no evidence to prove allegations levelled against the person. The court had said that the National Accountability Bureau needed to include details of the evidence against Shah in the reference, in order for it to issue his arrest warrant.
Issuing orders for Shah's release, the court remarked that the investigation officer had failed to follow its directives pertaining to completing the investigation of the case within 90 days and the accused couldn't be kept in custody when no evidence was available against him.
Meanwhile, Shah was directed by the court to submit Rs5 million as surety against the bail.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 19th, 2019.
The Sindh High Court (SHC) has ordered that settlements be reached between builder Sikandar Abdul Kareem, accused of defrauding 600 citizens in the name of Silver Sands project - a housing scheme in Clifton, and the affected parties. The court also directed that a report be submitted after the settlements were reached, within two weeks.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Ahmed Ali Shaikh and Justice Omar Sial, issued these directives while hearing Kareem's bail plea on Wednesday.
During the hearing, the counsel for the accused informed the court that notices seeking settlements had been issued to 22 citizens, of whom only seven had responded.
At this, the court remarked, "Would you be in a position to say that you were deprived of Rs2.5 million 25 to 30 years after the incident?"
'Tax machinery incapable of prosecuting fraud cases'
The counsel for the accused, however, maintained that the remaining affected persons hadn't approached Kareem for a settlement.
"How [then] do we reach a settlement with them?" he asked, adding that the builder had reached settlements with five of the affected citizens. Some of them have been paid Rs1.5 million, while others, Rs2 million.
In response, the court directed the counsel to allocate Rs70 million for repaying all the defrauded citizens on account of settlements. Further rebuking the counsel, the court asked, "What about those who paid [Kareem] Rs2.5 million?" and added that "they deserve to be repaid at least Rs10 million."
People in this city never come in direct contact with the actual builders but their front men, the court commented, directing that settlements be reached as soon as possible. It also sought a report on the matter after the settlements are finalised, within two weeks, and adjourned the hearing till January 15.
Petroleum products' price hike
Meanwhile, another bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Agha Faisal sought a counter reply from the petitioner, following the submission of the Ministry of Energy's reply over a plea challenging the rise in the prices of petroleum products.
The plea, filed by Iqbal Haider, states that the prices of petroleum products have been increased without the parliament's approval. It compares Finance Department officials to "International Monetary Fund officials", holding them responsible for "destroying the economy." The plea mentions that the rates of petroleum products will be increased further on June 1, 2020.
According to the petition, the rates were increased even when the matter was under trial in the court, which was akin to challenging the autonomy of the judiciary. It states that inflation has gripped the country as a consequence of the rise in the prices of petroleum products, adding that "the court should have been taken into confidence before the prices were increased."
The Ministry of Energy has submitted a reply to the plea, attributing the price hike to the increase in the rates of petroleum products in the international market. It states that the increase in prices does not tally with the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority's recommendations and have only been increased by 50% of the suggested hike, on Prime Minister Imran Khan's directives.
The increase during the months of March and April was distinctly less than that experienced in the international market, the ministry's reply mentions. It further informs the court that the parliament has given approval for increasing petroleum products' prices by Rs30, as part of the budget, adding that despite this, the increase in the prices has been kept at the bare minimum.
Journalists register FIR against suspect for fraud
Following the submission of the Ministry of Energy's reply, the court directed the petitioner to submit a counter reply. It also sought details about the mechanism for increasing petroleum products' prices from the Ministry of Energy and adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period of time.
Hearing transferred
In another case, the bench comprising Justice Shaikh and Justice Sial transferred the hearing of a plea challenging Pakistan Peoples Party MNA Syed Khursheed Shah's release on bail to SHC's Sukkur bench. The plea seeks the annulment of the accountability court's decision to release Shah, terming it "against the law."
An accountability court in Sukkur had ordered Shah's release, stating that according to section 24(d) of the NAB ordinance, an accused cannot be kept under arrest for more than 90 days if a reference has not been filed against the person. It further remarked that an accused can also not be kept in custody if there was no evidence to prove allegations levelled against the person. The court had said that the National Accountability Bureau needed to include details of the evidence against Shah in the reference, in order for it to issue his arrest warrant.
Issuing orders for Shah's release, the court remarked that the investigation officer had failed to follow its directives pertaining to completing the investigation of the case within 90 days and the accused couldn't be kept in custody when no evidence was available against him.
Meanwhile, Shah was directed by the court to submit Rs5 million as surety against the bail.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 19th, 2019.