ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has said that it would look into Maryam Nawaz’s conviction in the Avenfield reference “from the angle of Calibri font”.
A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani on Thursday heard the appeal of Maryam and Captain Safdar (retired) regarding their conviction in the Avenfield reference.
During the hearing, her counsel Amjad Parvez adopted the stance that the decision of the case against his clients rests on the report of Robert William Radley and the expert’s report can be secondary evidence, not the primary one.
Justice Kayani remarked that the court would look at the matter from the angle of Calibri font.
The court directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to present arguments at the next hearing and adjourned the case till September 20.
Maryam and her husband Captain Safdar (retd) had filed appeals against their conviction in the Avenfield Apartment reference.
The IHC had previously separated the appeals of Nawaz Sharif from the appeals of Maryam and Safdar and declared the former premier a proclaimed offender over his perpetual absence from hearings.
On July 6, 2018, Accountability Judge Mohammad Bashir had convicted Nawaz, his daughter Maryam and Captain (retd) Safdar in the Avenfield Apartment reference and awarded them prison terms of 10 years, seven years, and one year, respectively. The court had later suspended their respective sentences.
In her appeal, Maryam stated she was convicted under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) of the NAO, 1999 and for the offence at Serial No. 2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of two million Pounds under Section 10 of the NAO, 1999 for the offence under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) ibid, and to one-year simple imprisonment for offence at Serial No2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, with the stipulation that both sentences shall run concurrently.
Maryam in her appeal argued that the prosecution failed to furnish any oral account in support of its case, whereas, the entire documentary evidence produced by it was inadmissible for want of formal proof or being attestation of copies or being photocopies.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.