Former Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Hamid Saeed Kazmi on Wednesday invoked the apex court jurisdiction seeking leave to appeal against the Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict which had dismissed Kazmi bail application in Hajj corruption scam. On July 4, 2016, the IHC had dismissed bail application of former Minister for Religious Affairs on the grounds that the applicant has not yet undergone substantive portion of the sentence.
Hamid Saeed Kazmi is serving his 6-years sentence at Adiala jail Rawalpindi, awarded to him in Hajj Corruption case by the court of special judge central on June 3, 2016. Filing the petition under Article 185 (3) of the constitution through his counsel Sardar Latif Khosa, he made the State through Prosecutor General Islamabad as respondent.
Urging the court to grant leave to appeal against the judgement of the IHC, Sardar Latif Khosa submitted that in the case registered against his client vide FIR No 05/2010 on November 12, 2010 U/S 409,420,468/471,109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read with Section 5(2) 47 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the petitioner after the trial was convicted by the learned Central Judge, Islamabad vide his judgment on June 3, 2016 and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with fine of Rs 14,73,97,600/ and imprisonment for 6 years with fine of rupees one million.
Khosa further said that the judgment of learned trial court has also directed that in default of payment of fine the convict was to undergo further 2 years imprisonment, however, he was held entitled for benefit of Section 382(b) CrPC. He submitted that according to the jail record which is available on the file of the case in the shape of letter of the Superintendent, Central Prison Rawalpindi dated June 24, 2016, his client has served sentence of 3 years, 8 months and 4 days out of the total sentence of 6 years awarded to him by the learned trial court.
Terming the observation of the learned High Court that the petitioner has not undergone substantive portion of his sentence, the petitioner said it is not factually and legally correct because the petitioner has served out more than half of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court.
Sardar Latif Khosa said on this ground alone, the petitioner could be allowed bail by suspension of operation of sentence because if ultimately the petitioner is acquitted by the learned High Court no reparation could be offered for the sentence, agony and mental torture of the petitioner suffered in the jail. Khosa further submitted that the impugned order of the IHC, therefore, being against the law and result of misreading of the record, needs to be set aside by the Supreme Court.
Comments
Comments are closed.