ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought details of cases pending before the Accountability Court, Lahore, which is hearing Opposition Leader in Punjab Assembly Hamza Shehbaz Sharif. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, heard Hamza's application for early hearing of his post-arrest bail petition.
The bench inquired from the NAB special prosecutor general that how many cases were pending in the Accountability Court, Lahore. Justice Yahya Afridi questioned when Hamza Shehbaz's case would be heard. He stated that the apex court had directed the Accountability Courts that trial should be conducted on a daily basis. He asked the SPG to provide all the details on the next hearing, and adjourned the case for an indefinite period.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader, Hamza Shehbaz, was arrested in Ramzan Sugar Mills scam. He is behind the bars for the last 18 months. Hamza's counsel pleaded that the NAB had filed a reference against him, which comprises voluminous record and 110 proposed prosecution witnesses (PWs) out which only three PWs had recorded their statements.
A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on February 6, 2020, had extended interim bail to Hamza Shehbaz in the Ramazan Sugar Mills corruption case.
The NAB on March 21, 2020, approached the Supreme Court to cancel the PML-N leader's bail. The NAB submitted that the division bench of the LHC has fallen an error by not considering the cardinal principles of criminal law as envisaged under the provisions of Section (9) (b) NAO, 1999.
It further submitted that the high court had not appreciated the evidence available on record in its true perspective which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, and had prejudiced the case of the prosecution. It prayed before the apex court to grant leave to appeal against the order passed on February 6, 2020 passed by the LHC.
The NAB questioned as to whether the LHC erred in not considering that the constitutional petition was neither maintainable nor competent, and suffered from legal infirmities, hence, not proceed able, which fact was duly apprised during the hearing but not finding to that extent was given by the court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2020
Comments
Comments are closed.