The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday, issued notice to a former official of Tawana Pakistan Programme on a petition filed by Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against her acquittal of a corruption case.
IHC Chief Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman issued notice to former Deputy Director Tawana Pakistan Project (TPP) Shazia Mughis, on the FIA petition challenging her acquittal in a Rs110 million scam and sought her reply by November 22.
Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Tariq Mehmood Jahangri maintained that Special Judge (Central) Rawalpindi had acquitted Ms Mughis on January 14.
The DAG informed the court that FIA had registered the case against her on July 26 last year. In October 2011, a supplementary report was submitted before the special judge. According to the investigation, Mughis was held responsible for incurring a loss of Rs110 million to the national exchequer.
He said that during the submission of supplementary reports, her name was erroneously dropped. However, he added, the court acquitted her, despite her involvement in the scam. Meanwhile, he said, the others accused in the case including Irfanullah, the then project director, TPP, Muhammad Ashraf and Ashiq Hussain Sangi were in jail.
According to the FIA investigation, Rs571.426 million had been embezzled after Irfanullah was appointed as project director and Rs384.6 million was paid in advance to three different private companies for supply of milk, juices and biscuits.
FIA claimed that they had recovered from TPP office, record of fake receipts showing expenditure on advertisements, renovation and construction of project offices at Laki Marwat, DG Khan, Pak Pattan, Badin, Gwadar and Turbat. Moreover, DAG requested the court to declare the acquittal null and void and issued orders for her trial along with others accused.
The project launched in 2002 aimed to cover deficiencies in the poverty-stricken districts of the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 8th, 2011.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ