ahlam1399
12-20-2017, 11:10 AM
ISLAMABAD: Can Nawaz get relief from the same court on the grounds similar to that of Asif Ali Zardari who was acquitted in the corruption references in November 2015 on the basis that NAB failed to produce the original record and Zardari was tried on the basis of photocopies of the original record?
This question emerged on Tuesday when the defence team of Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Safdar raised objection before the accountability court that many of documents attached with the three corruption references were not original and thus not admissible. In fact, these were photo copies of the photo copies that could not be exhibited in a court of law, they added.
It was for the 10th time that Nawaz appeared before the accountability court on Tuesday. During the hearing of NAB references, the Sharifs? legal team comprising Khawaja Haris Ahmed and Amjad Pervaiz argued that under the law only those documents could be considered as genuine, which were either attested by a court or were original.
During the recording of statement of a prosecution witness ? Additional Director (Coordination) Operations Division Shakeel Anjum Nagra, it emerged that NAB was yet to submit original or certified copies of the JIT report. ?Till this time the trial is going on at the basis of attested photocopies of JIT report that are not certified to be authentic.?
Nagra, however, said that he received attested/certified copies of the JIT report from Supreme Court and handed over to NAB. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that the NAB had submitted requisition form for obtaining the record that was returned and the apex court registrar office had directed the Bureau to submit an application for the purpose.
Nawaz?s counsel, after looking at the requisition form said, ?It is not mentioned on the form that NAB's application seeking record was turned down and that they (NAB) have been directed to file an application.?
Responding to another question, Nagra said he did not enquire why any directions or note was not present when the form was returned and he did not write about this to the high ups. He admitted that the name of Supreme Court official who turned down NAB's request providing attested photocopies is also not mentioned on the form. The date is also not mentioned on the document.
Haris pointed out that it also not mentioned whether these were true copies or made from original record. Could NAB and the accountability court rely on photocopies, he asked, adding that the record had to be original or the certified copies of the original, not the attested copies of the photocopies.
A NAB prosecutor said they did not apply again for the JIT report?s certified copies because it was already available. At this, another prosecutor intervened and requested the court to allow them acquire the record from the Supreme Court ? a request which was turned down verbally.
To this, the accountability court judge, Muhammad Bashir, addressing the counsels said, ?Should we move on at NAB's own risk and cost??. To which Haris replied that it would have been better if NAB had produced something in writing about the rejection of their application.
All this emerged before the recording of evidence of one prosecution witness Afaq Ahmed who recorded his statement in the Flagship reference. Afaq Ahmed is Director SSP in the office of foreign secretary. On May 30, he received a sealed envelope from Pakistan's embassy in Doha that was for JIT head Wajid Zia. The sealed envelope was sent by Prince Hammad bin Jassim.
Afaq had recorded his statement before the JIT under Section 161. Initially, the defence team objected that his statement before the JIT could not become a part of the court proceedings. After that the whole issue regarding attestation of documents emerged.
The court also recorded statement of a MCB Garden Town Lahore branch manager operation, Yasir Shabbir Chaudhry, who provided details of the bank accounts of Nawaz and Maryam. Yasir recorded his statement in Al-Azizia/Hill Metal Establishment reference.
The witness told the court that the NAB on August 2, 2017 requisitioned details of the money transaction in the accounts of Nawaz and his daughter. He exhibited the banks statements and summaries of the accounts before the court. He submitted the account statement of Maryam from January 2008 to July 2009 and of Nawaz from February 2010 to June 2017.
A legal counsel for Nawaz, Ayesha Hamid, in her objections said according to law, summaries could not be produced as evidence. The court, however, said it would look into the matter at a later stage.
Yasir told the court that an amount of Rs 7.87 million was deposited in the bank account of Maryam from Hill Metal Establishment, followed by a another transaction of Rs 19.124 million. During cross-examination, Haris pointed out that the witness himself attested the documents he exhibited but he did not mention the date. He asked the witness that did he submit any certificate indicating that the entries in the bank statement were still intact in the bank record. To which, his reply was negative.
Haris then asked whether there was any irregularity or illegality in bank accounts of Nawaz and his daughter during the period these accounts remained operative. To which, the witness also replied in negative and said the bank never generated any 'suspicious transaction report' (STR). The counsel said the witness should have produced complete record on the basis of which entries were made in the bank statements. *Yasir will continue recording his statement January 3, the next date of hearing. Two more prosecution witnesses Zawar Manzoor and Muhammad Tasleem are also going to record their statements after him.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/eSAibjNnN9U
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/eSAibjNnN9U/258165-nawaz-in-accountability-court-for-10th-time)
This question emerged on Tuesday when the defence team of Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Safdar raised objection before the accountability court that many of documents attached with the three corruption references were not original and thus not admissible. In fact, these were photo copies of the photo copies that could not be exhibited in a court of law, they added.
It was for the 10th time that Nawaz appeared before the accountability court on Tuesday. During the hearing of NAB references, the Sharifs? legal team comprising Khawaja Haris Ahmed and Amjad Pervaiz argued that under the law only those documents could be considered as genuine, which were either attested by a court or were original.
During the recording of statement of a prosecution witness ? Additional Director (Coordination) Operations Division Shakeel Anjum Nagra, it emerged that NAB was yet to submit original or certified copies of the JIT report. ?Till this time the trial is going on at the basis of attested photocopies of JIT report that are not certified to be authentic.?
Nagra, however, said that he received attested/certified copies of the JIT report from Supreme Court and handed over to NAB. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that the NAB had submitted requisition form for obtaining the record that was returned and the apex court registrar office had directed the Bureau to submit an application for the purpose.
Nawaz?s counsel, after looking at the requisition form said, ?It is not mentioned on the form that NAB's application seeking record was turned down and that they (NAB) have been directed to file an application.?
Responding to another question, Nagra said he did not enquire why any directions or note was not present when the form was returned and he did not write about this to the high ups. He admitted that the name of Supreme Court official who turned down NAB's request providing attested photocopies is also not mentioned on the form. The date is also not mentioned on the document.
Haris pointed out that it also not mentioned whether these were true copies or made from original record. Could NAB and the accountability court rely on photocopies, he asked, adding that the record had to be original or the certified copies of the original, not the attested copies of the photocopies.
A NAB prosecutor said they did not apply again for the JIT report?s certified copies because it was already available. At this, another prosecutor intervened and requested the court to allow them acquire the record from the Supreme Court ? a request which was turned down verbally.
To this, the accountability court judge, Muhammad Bashir, addressing the counsels said, ?Should we move on at NAB's own risk and cost??. To which Haris replied that it would have been better if NAB had produced something in writing about the rejection of their application.
All this emerged before the recording of evidence of one prosecution witness Afaq Ahmed who recorded his statement in the Flagship reference. Afaq Ahmed is Director SSP in the office of foreign secretary. On May 30, he received a sealed envelope from Pakistan's embassy in Doha that was for JIT head Wajid Zia. The sealed envelope was sent by Prince Hammad bin Jassim.
Afaq had recorded his statement before the JIT under Section 161. Initially, the defence team objected that his statement before the JIT could not become a part of the court proceedings. After that the whole issue regarding attestation of documents emerged.
The court also recorded statement of a MCB Garden Town Lahore branch manager operation, Yasir Shabbir Chaudhry, who provided details of the bank accounts of Nawaz and Maryam. Yasir recorded his statement in Al-Azizia/Hill Metal Establishment reference.
The witness told the court that the NAB on August 2, 2017 requisitioned details of the money transaction in the accounts of Nawaz and his daughter. He exhibited the banks statements and summaries of the accounts before the court. He submitted the account statement of Maryam from January 2008 to July 2009 and of Nawaz from February 2010 to June 2017.
A legal counsel for Nawaz, Ayesha Hamid, in her objections said according to law, summaries could not be produced as evidence. The court, however, said it would look into the matter at a later stage.
Yasir told the court that an amount of Rs 7.87 million was deposited in the bank account of Maryam from Hill Metal Establishment, followed by a another transaction of Rs 19.124 million. During cross-examination, Haris pointed out that the witness himself attested the documents he exhibited but he did not mention the date. He asked the witness that did he submit any certificate indicating that the entries in the bank statement were still intact in the bank record. To which, his reply was negative.
Haris then asked whether there was any irregularity or illegality in bank accounts of Nawaz and his daughter during the period these accounts remained operative. To which, the witness also replied in negative and said the bank never generated any 'suspicious transaction report' (STR). The counsel said the witness should have produced complete record on the basis of which entries were made in the bank statements. *Yasir will continue recording his statement January 3, the next date of hearing. Two more prosecution witnesses Zawar Manzoor and Muhammad Tasleem are also going to record their statements after him.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/eSAibjNnN9U
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/eSAibjNnN9U/258165-nawaz-in-accountability-court-for-10th-time)