|
|
#1
11-24-2017, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
They may bring another Qatari for defence: IHC
The IHC reserved judgment in a matter where former prime minister Nawaz Sharif sought joint framing of charges and joint trial in the three corruption references pending against him at Accountability Court (AC). A National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Deputy Prosecutor General (DPG) Sardar Muzaffar Abassi argued before the court that Accountability Court already started recording statements of the witnesses in all the three references and this application seeking joint trial and joint charges had gone infructuous. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, member of this division bench asked legal counsel for Nawaz Sharif what impact it would make if all the witnesses recorded their statements and produced evidence and then this court accepted this petition. Nawaz Sharif?s counsel Azam Nazir Tarar, on this, replied in poetry saying, ?Kee merey Qatal Kay Baad Uss Ne Jafa Se Touba?..Hye Uss Zood Pesheman Ka Pesheman Hona?. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif through his counsel said that the petition sought to set aside November 8 AC judgment through which Accountability Court had dismissed his applications for joint trial. The petitioner cited state through NAB chairman and Accountability Court No 1 judge as respondents. During last hearing, Nawaz Sharif?s counsel had contended before the IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani if not three at least two references should be combined for joint charges and joint trial at Accountability Court. It is to mention here that Nawaz Sharif had also filed the same application before Supreme Court of Pakistan which dismissed his application observing that the petitioner might seek remedy at an appropriate forum. Today, IHC division bench reserved its judgment after counsels from both defence and prosecution concluded their arguments. Legal counsel for Nawaz Sharif, Azam Nazir Tarar advocate argued before the court that Accountability Court (AC) on November 8, second time rejected applications of his client for joint trial without waiting for detailed judgment of the IHC. It is to mention here that AC in its November 8 order had said, ?In order to avoid conflicting judgments, or any likelihood of ignoring any defence that will be produced by the applicant separately in each reference, all the three references shall be decided simultaneously?. Referring to this, Nawaz Sharif?s counsel said that AC issued its order based on assumptions of ?likelihood? in future that is not right. There is only a single allegation of assets beyond means and under single allegation, only a single reference to be filed and single trial should be conducted. Advocate Tarar said that under article 13, there could not be a double trial for a single offence. At this, Justice Aamer Farooq said that the mandate of article 13 is different while in this matter there are separate transactions. Advocate Tarar while referring to a high court judgment said that the court should not play role of the prosecution. He referred many other judgments where references were clubbed. Advocate Tarar further said that even AC had conceded that the facts mentioned in all the three references were of same kind. Similar prosecution witnesses would record their statements again and again and every time defence would cross-examine, it would expose the defence of his client beforehand, advocate Tarar also said. NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi counter argued that it was not correct that with repetition of witnesses, their defence would get exposed. They already exposed their defence through interviews at different television channels and address in Parliament. They admitted the ownership of properties. Sardar Muzaffar Abassi argued before the court that AC already started recording statements of the witnesses in all the three references and this application seeking joint trial and joint charges had gone infructuous. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani at that juncture said if They should stop the trial at the AC. At this Nawaz Sharif counsel said that he had already been saying that the trial must not get on till adjudication of this petition. Previous date of hearing Advocate Tarar had argued that Azizia Steel Company and Flagship Investments corruption references were quite similar to each other and They might be combined if not the Avenfield Apartment reference. In this petition, Nawaz Sharif said that he was aggrieved by an accountability court order dated November 8 through which AC had dismissed his application of joint framing of charges and joint trial in three corruption references filed against him regarding alleged offences of same kind. Through the application, the petitioner had also been seeking deletion of section 9(a)(v) from the charges in corruption reference number 20. That in all the three references it was alleged that the properties acquired from 2001 till 2009 (with remittances covering from 2009 till 2015) in the name of benamdars Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz were actually owned by the petitioner (Nawaz Sharif) and were disproportionate to his known sources of income. That each reference is supplemented by a nine volume Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report with common prosecution witnesses. Similarly petitioner?s defence against each allegation is also the same. The petitioner said that the offences under section 9(a)(v) and all precedents pertaining thereto, a single offence could be framed against the accused irrespective of the nature and number of the assets alleged to be owned by the accused. The petitioner prayed to the court to set aside AC order dated November 8 through which AC had dismissed his application seeking joint trial and joint charges and also deletion of section 9(a)(v). It is also prayed that AC judge may be directed to frame a single charge against the petitioner and conduct a single trial under section 17(d) of the national accountability ordinance. Petitioner has further prayed that a joint trial may be conducted to avoid conflicting judgment and proceedings may be suspended till framing of joint charges. It is to mention here that AC in its detailed judgment of November 8, with reference to section 17(d) had said that ?section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 provides a mechanism which may be adopted or not depending on the circumstances of each case?. Prosecution or accused cannot insist on joint trial of offences even in the case of same kind. The accused/applicant could not justify clubbing of all the three references for a joint trail in the circumstances of the cases, AC said. أكثر... ??????? ??????: They may bring another Qatari for defence: IHC || ??????: ahlam1399 || ??????: اسم منتداك
|
 |
|
|
العرض العادي
