Justice served: Woman, land officials found guilty of fraud

She had fraudulently gotten a two-storey building registered in her name after her husband's death.


Our Correspondent April 20, 2015
STOCK IMAGE

KARACHI: An anti-corruption court decided on Monday an eight-year-old property scam after convicting a land official, his subordinate and three others of fraud.

The case, which seems to be an ownership dispute over a two-storey building in FB Area between a woman, Hameeda Begum, and her step-daughter, was registered in 2007. It, however, remained under trial until yesterday.

According to the prosecution, Mirza Khajista Bux was the real owner of the property. During his lifetime, he had executed a general power of attorney to his second wife, Hameeda. The power had become invalid after his death in 2007 but the woman, along with two of her accomplices, Mohsin and Afaq, had bribed the then sub-registrar of Gulberg Town, Dev Parkash, and his reader, Imranul Haq, to get the property registered in their favour.

The registration was done fraudulently on the basis of forged documents, the complainant — the step-daughter of the accused woman — had told the court.

The special judge, Gulshan Ara Chandio, heard the case at length and after scrutinising the evidence, found the suspects guilty of the offence. All the suspects were sentenced to five years in jail, including the main accused, Hameeda, who was convicted in absentia. Hameeda was granted bail some time ago and did not show up before the court again.

An FIR of the case was registered under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471(using as genuine a forged document) and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at the anti-corruption establishment police station.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 21st, 2015. 

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