A division bench of the Lahore High Court from Monday October 11 will hear bail petition and appeal of former MPA Suhail Zia Butt, and father of PML-N MNA Umar Suhail, who is also relative of his party chief Mian Nawaz Sharif challenging his conviction for absconding from the court.
On September 30, a bench comprising Chaudhry Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry and Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi had refused to hear the case and referred these petitions to the chief justice for fixing these before any other bench. An accountability court on Judge 21, 2001 had sentenced him to three years imprisonment for not appearing before the court in a bank default case.
The accused was arrested after nine years of his conviction from Kalma Chowk on September 1st against the warrants issued on January 12, 2001 by accountability court, for his non-appearance despite repeated notices. He moved appeal against his conviction and also bail application.
The bench had already condoned the delay of about nine years, which earlier hindered Suhail Zia from moving the appellate court against him conviction, under the law of limitation. The trial court on September 2 after arrest gave accused in NAB custody for two days physical remand. The court due to Suhail Zia's cardiac problem had directed for his medical check up from Services Hospital.
The reference against Subail Zia was filed during the regime of General Pervez Musharraf (Retd) accusing him of 'embezzling' Rs two million which he allegedly received from National Industrial Finance Corporation (NIFC) under a deal to get Ahmad Mansion, The Mall, evacuated from the illegal occupants which he failed to honour and on complaint of the executive officer of the corporation, the reference was framed against Butt by the NAB.
Suhail Zia's counsel Ehtasham Qadir advanced arguments on appeal in which he submitted that the accused was facing no charges of corruption, which fell in the ambience of NAB law. He said it was known to everyone that Suhail Zia was not in the country since May 13, 2000 as such no question of his receiving the notice or appearance before the court and whatever reports with respect to him were prepared by the NAB in that course were inauthentic and bogus and aimed at victimising him.
The counsel asserted that the alleged contract was between the two parties and any breach did not amount to corruption or embezzlement of public money. He claimed that the conviction as well as arrest warrants of accused were illegal. The counsel said that the accused was in Pakistan over the last two and half years and attended a number of public events and took part in the election campaign of his son, but the NAB authorities did not take action against him following the warrants in question and now have acted with malafide intention.