Facts regarding the Danka Controversy

It refers to M.S. Hasan's letter appearing in the Business Recorder on July 15, 2006, raising certain points in the context of my article captioned, "The Facts regarding the Danka Controversy" published on July 1, 2006 in your esteemed paper.
The purpose of my article was to put the record straight and bring out facts established through judicial process by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), the highest regulatory authority, for the right thinking people with the indication of source of information ie the web site of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) http://www.secp.org.pk/appellate/ju1-30-02.htm.
The detailed and exhaustive order passed by the Appellate Bench in Appeals No 19, 27 and 28 of 2002 summarises previous proceedings, evaluates and analyses the entire evidence after detailed hearing of parties and their eminent lawyers. The Appellate order was passed by the reputed members of the commission, M. Zafar-ul-Haq Hijazi and N.K. Shahani.
It comprises 50 pages and examines factual and legal issues raised in appeals against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed by the Commissioner Enforcement, Abdul Rehman Qureshi, equally well known for his integrity and command on law.
The Commissioner Enforcement's order dated April 9, 2006 titled "In the matter of Mian Nisar Elahi and Iftikhar Shaffi" comprising 24 pages was passed after affording full opportunity of being heard to the accused.
IT CONCLUDES IN PARAS 48 TO 51 AS UNDER:
"48 From the evidence noted above, I am of the considered view that the accused did, for the purposes of influencing or turning to their advantage, enter into the purchase and sale of BoP and ACIL, shares (directly and indirectly) and, thereby engaged in a course of business which operated as a manipulation on the securities markets (and, in particular, all investors of the LSE and KSE).
Furthermore such a course of business entailed a series of transactions effected by the accused in the shares of BoP and AICL which created an appearance of active trading and of price in securities markets for the purpose of inducing its purchases by others.
49" Also from the data noted above I am of the considered view that the accused did, for the purposes of influencing or turning to their advantage, enter into the purchase and sale of BoP and AICL shares (directly and indirectly) and, thereby engaged in a course of business which operated as a manipulation on the securities markets (and, in particular, all investors of the LSE and KSE). Furthermore such a course of business entailed creation of a false and misleading appearance of active trading.
50" Finally and from the data noted above I am of the considered view that the accused did, for the purpose of influencing or turning to their advantage, enter into the purchase and sale of BoP and AICL, shares (directly and indirectly) and, thereby engaged in a course of business which operated as a manipulation on the securities markets (and, in particular, all investors of the LSE and KSE). Furthermore such a course of business entailed the entering of orders for the purchase and sale of security which ultimately cancelled out each other and did not result in any change in the beneficial ownership of such security.
51" In the matter of the accused I have no hesitation in invoking the powers under Sections 20 (4) (a) (b), (g) and (o) and 20 (6) (b) and (g) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 read with Section 17 (c) (ii) (iv) (v) and 24 (i) and 25 of the ordinance and directing that Criminal proceedings should be initiated against the accused in a court not inferior to that of Court of Sessions.
The Appellate Bench of SECP while deciding appeals No 19, 27 and 28 of 2002 confirmed the order of the Commissioner Enforcement in the following words.
"57. In view of the foregoing, the Appellants are found to have committed price manipulation under Section 17 of the ordinance during the period from January to June 2000. We maintain the decision taken in the impugned order to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 24 of the Ordinance.
In view of the said violations, the removal of the Appellants (I S) and (T.M) from the membership of Lahore Stock Exchange as directed in the impugned order is also maintained."
The learned author of letter missed both the purpose and advice of my article that, one must carry out reasonable research and refer to the sources of his information before writing in the National Press. We must respect law and the orders passed by competent authorities under law.
The order of the Appellate Bench of SECP holds the field and remains the final word on facts and law unless modified by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Had the learned author gone through the relevant orders, he would not have raised the questions for which authentic and confirmed legal replies are available in the orders of SECP as displayed on its website.