Malik ordered to ensure appearance on March 25

18 Mar, 2010

A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) here on Wednesday, exempting federal interior minister Rehman Malik from personal appearance only for one time, ordered him to ensure his appearance on March 25 so that the case could be proceeded accordingly.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif also extended his bail until next date of hearing. The court had granted him bail after suspending his conviction under section 31-A of National Accountability Ordinance in two references made by National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
On Wednesday, one of Rehman's counsel told the court that minister was busy in cabinet meeting in Islamabad therefore his personal appearance might be exempted. The court accepted the plea and adjourned the hearing by March 25.
In first reference, Rehman Malik and others were accused of receiving two cars worth Rs 17,98,000 from one Saleem Godial of Toyota Central Motors, Karachi, as illegal gratification on account of purchase of official vehicles by FIA worth crore of rupees from Toyota Motors.
The second case was registered by FIA on complaint of one Hashim Raza, a resident of Lahore. He alleged that Malik along with Muhammad Sajjad Haider, AD/FIA Islamabad and others raided his house in August 1994 and looted jewellery weighing 20 tolas and Rs 7,00,000.
Complainant further alleged that two persons in plain clothes snatched 20,000 dollars from his brother when they transported him from Lahore Airport to FIA office on his (brother) arrival from USA. According to NAB, Rehman Malik implicated them in fake cases to please a major in Pakistan Army who had threatened him in 1990 claiming that Rehman was one of his best friends who would teach him a lesson.
Both these cases were initially tried by special court dealing with FIA cases but were transferred to accountability court after the promulgation of NAB ordinance in 1999. Under National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) the proceedings in these references were stopped, however, after the judgement of Supreme Court against the Ordinance the cases were reopened.

Read Comments