Imran Khan's former aide on accountability, Shahzad Akbar, has partially contested a trial court's verdict that cleared PML-N leader Shehbaz Sharif's son, Suleman Shehbaz, of money laundering charges. The Special Court Central judge in Lahore acquitted Suleman Shehbaz and others in a case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) during the PTI's rule. However, the judge directed authorities to take action against Akbar for allegedly initiating a false prosecution against the respondents.
Akbar, who served as the PM’s Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) chief when the case was filed, has filed a petition in the Lahore High Court (LHC) through advocate Haroon Ilyas. In the petition, Akbar seeks to quash the trial court's observations and directions, citing their adverse impact on his reputation, personal life, and legal career. The petitioner argues that the trial court's order lacks a valid and convincing reason for instructing the federation of Pakistan to take action against him.
Read more: PM’s son gets clean chit in graft case
He submitted that the then federal cabinet had instructed the FIA to initiate action based on the report of a sugar inquiry commission. He said the decision to initiate the inquiry and investigation was not influenced by him but was a result of the federal cabinet’s directive. “The direction given in the impugned order against the petitioner lacks substance and is without a proper basis which needs to be set aside,” the petitioner added.
Akbar said the trial court’s observation contradicts the findings of the higher court and is flawed and without basis. “The observation made by the trial court without examining any witnesses is seen as incorrect and is being challenged through the revision petition, which needs to be set aside.”
He said the trial court went beyond its purview of a trial court and acted like a constitutional court. “The deviation from established legal principles indicates an ambitious attempt by the trial court to pave the way for an acquittal order,” he stated. He claimed that the trial court failed to adequately address the issue of whether the facts narrated in the FIR gave rise to the offences mentioned in the FIR or the challan.
Also read: PM, son acquitted in money laundering case
Imran’s former aide noted that following the submission of the report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), it was the responsibility of the trial court to proceed with the case by either framing charges or addressing any miscellaneous applications that may have arisen.
“In this particular case, the trial court took an unprecedented approach. During the hearing of the applications under section 265-K of the CrPC, [the court] independently formulated 27 questions and sought answers from media, the public at large, and even from the FIA [on June 24, 2023].”
He contended that many of these 27 questions pertained to the revenue of the sugar business. Importantly, these revenue-related matters were not included in the original challan of the FIA. “Despite, this, the trial court proceeded to solicit answers from the investigation agency regarding these matters. This approach is in violation of the legal procedures governing the framing of charges and is outside the scope of a trial court’s authority,” he added.
According to Akbar, the FIA had submitted a list of 100 witnesses in the investigation report submitted under section 173 of the CrPC, however, the court did not call these witnesses for examination. “Additionally, the presence of financial analysts who prepared a report detailing over 15, 000 transactions involving benami accounts of the accused, amounting to Rs.16 billion. “However, the trial court still discharged the accused individuals based on its own assumptions which is contrary to the law,” he added.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ