ahlam1399
12-10-2017, 08:30 AM
ISLAMABAD: The suspended chairman of Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), Zafarul Haq Hijazi, has filed a petition with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking discharge of the case registered against him under the allegations of tampering with the record of Chaudhry Sugar Mills owned by the Sharif family.
Hijazi has contended in the petition that the charge framed against him is groundless, and there is no possibility of his conviction; therefore, the case registered against him may be discharged and he may be acquitted.
Earlier, the trial Special Judge Central (SJC) had dismissed his application he filed under sections 242 and 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Section 242 is related to the framing of charges and 249-A empowers a judge to acquit an accused at any stage if he feels that the charge is groundless and there is no possibility for conviction of the accused.
The Supreme Court, while hearing Panama case on June 19, had directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to register an FIR against Hijazi for closing an enquiry pending against the Chaudhry Sugar Mills in back dates. Consequently, the FIA registered an FIR against him under sections 466 and 471 of Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
In the FIR, it was alleged that the Hijazi conducted criminal misconduct by misusing his official authority exerting pressure on his subordinates for forgery and falsification of the official record. The FIA submitted a challan on September 11 and charges were framed against Hijazi on October 27.
In his recent revision petition before the IHC, Hijazi has cited the state and Special Judge Central as respondents. The SJC on November 10 had dismissed his revision application saying that ?Questions of facts cannot be considered as legal controversies. At this early stage without adducing evidence, the only question which could be considered is "doubtfulness" if any doubt found in a statement of witness.? The SJC further said that ?As far as alleged sections 466/471 PPC and 5(2) 47 PCA, all such alleged offences could only be seen in the light of evidence. Yet, it is to be ascertained that whether petitioner/accused purported the document by using his influence and undue pressure to his subordinates.?
The SJC had observed that these questions could not be addressed without recording of the witnesses. The petitioner, however, said that the SJC dismissed his petition without considering the law points, and it was contrary to the principles of fairness, objectivity and transparency.
The petitioner said that SJC completely ignored that a case is not made out from the contents of the challan, and there is no probability that the petitioner may get convicted. The petitioner said that the SJC order is based on misreading or non-reading of the complete record of the case and caused miscarriage of justice.He further said that the charges framed under the FIR are based on enmity, malice and ulterior motives. That trial court also failed to appreciate the fact that FIA has no jurisdiction to investigate this matter. The FIA, in its final enquiry report, said that the petitioner has been found guilty of violating the SECP Act 1997, but strangely recommended to form a criminal case against him. Under the law, sections 466 and 471 were not applicable to this case. The petitioner has prayed to the court to set aside the SJC order and discharge the case registered against him.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/JpOBYBEojxI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/JpOBYBEojxI/254453-hijazi-petitions-ihc-to-quash-secp-record-tampering-case)
Hijazi has contended in the petition that the charge framed against him is groundless, and there is no possibility of his conviction; therefore, the case registered against him may be discharged and he may be acquitted.
Earlier, the trial Special Judge Central (SJC) had dismissed his application he filed under sections 242 and 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Section 242 is related to the framing of charges and 249-A empowers a judge to acquit an accused at any stage if he feels that the charge is groundless and there is no possibility for conviction of the accused.
The Supreme Court, while hearing Panama case on June 19, had directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to register an FIR against Hijazi for closing an enquiry pending against the Chaudhry Sugar Mills in back dates. Consequently, the FIA registered an FIR against him under sections 466 and 471 of Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
In the FIR, it was alleged that the Hijazi conducted criminal misconduct by misusing his official authority exerting pressure on his subordinates for forgery and falsification of the official record. The FIA submitted a challan on September 11 and charges were framed against Hijazi on October 27.
In his recent revision petition before the IHC, Hijazi has cited the state and Special Judge Central as respondents. The SJC on November 10 had dismissed his revision application saying that ?Questions of facts cannot be considered as legal controversies. At this early stage without adducing evidence, the only question which could be considered is "doubtfulness" if any doubt found in a statement of witness.? The SJC further said that ?As far as alleged sections 466/471 PPC and 5(2) 47 PCA, all such alleged offences could only be seen in the light of evidence. Yet, it is to be ascertained that whether petitioner/accused purported the document by using his influence and undue pressure to his subordinates.?
The SJC had observed that these questions could not be addressed without recording of the witnesses. The petitioner, however, said that the SJC dismissed his petition without considering the law points, and it was contrary to the principles of fairness, objectivity and transparency.
The petitioner said that SJC completely ignored that a case is not made out from the contents of the challan, and there is no probability that the petitioner may get convicted. The petitioner said that the SJC order is based on misreading or non-reading of the complete record of the case and caused miscarriage of justice.He further said that the charges framed under the FIR are based on enmity, malice and ulterior motives. That trial court also failed to appreciate the fact that FIA has no jurisdiction to investigate this matter. The FIA, in its final enquiry report, said that the petitioner has been found guilty of violating the SECP Act 1997, but strangely recommended to form a criminal case against him. Under the law, sections 466 and 471 were not applicable to this case. The petitioner has prayed to the court to set aside the SJC order and discharge the case registered against him.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/JpOBYBEojxI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/JpOBYBEojxI/254453-hijazi-petitions-ihc-to-quash-secp-record-tampering-case)