Police officer issued contempt notice

The SSP was late for court proceedings, said that he was in an urgent meeting with the chief minister’s secretary.


Express November 12, 2010

LAHORE: Lahore High Court’s Justice Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi issued a contempt of court notice to the SSP (Investigation) Zulfiqar Hameed for being late for court proceedings.

The police officer had been summoned in connection with a petition challenging transfer of investigation in a bogus cheque case.

The judge had summoned SSP Hameed to court on Thursday but he arrived late. The SSP said that he was in an urgent meeting with the chief minister’s secretary so he could not be on time.

The judge issued the SSP a notice for Friday to explain why the meeting was more important than court proceedings.

The petitioner had submitted that an earlier investigation had found the accused guilty and a challan was submitted before the trial court in September 2009. He said that despite repeated court notices the accused had not responded. On July 10, 2010, the court h

ad declared her a proclaimed offender.

The petitioner added that on October 5, after getting bail from court, the accused bank official had applied for transfer of investigation.

He submitted that SSP Hameed had rejected the application.

The petitioner said that on October 25 he spoke with district superintendent of police (DSP) Misri Shah on the telephone and was informed that the DSP had been directed to re-investigate the case and told to record his statement.

The petitioner said that he filed an application with the inspector general of police against the transfer but so far no decision had been reached. He said the accused was using personal connections and manipulating the police in her favour.

He requested that the transfer of investigation, when trial was underway, be declared illegal and unconstitutional.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 12th, 2010.

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