Sale of movable, immovable properties: judgment on plea of Dar's wife reserved

26 Sep, 2019

The Accountability Court hearing a corruption reference against former finance minister Ishaq Dar on Wednesday reserved its judgment on the plea of Dar's wife against the court order with regard to sale of movable and immovable properties of her husband. The Accountability Court judge reserved judgment over Tabassum Ishaq Dar's plea, following hearing the arguments of both the parties and adjourned the case till October 2.
Tabassum had challenged the court order with regard to sale of her husband's properties on October 24, 2018 after he was declared an absconder in a reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for accumulating assets beyond means. In her petition, she stated that her husband purchased house No 7-H, Gulberg-III, Lahore, on May 21, 1988, and since then the family has been residing in it. The house had been orally gifted by Dar in her favour on February 14, 1989 in lieu of her dower (Haq Mehr) which was accepted by her. The actual possession of the house is with her as she is true and a lawful owner since it was gifted to her, she stated in her application.
It further said that the house is not a property owned by Dar and the report filed by the NAB is incorrect and contrary to facts. Thus, any property attached on the basis of incorrect report is liable to be corrected under the Section 88 (6A), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), said the petition. The NAB had filed a supplementary reference against Dar on February 26 last year. The reference comprises seven volumes and includes 24 witnesses and three co-accused namely former president of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) Saeed Ahmed, Mansoor Raza Rizvi and Naeem Mehmood, both directors of Dar's companies. The three co-accused were present in the courtroom during the hearing.
Defence counsel Qazi Misbah while arguing before the court said that this does not come under the domain of NAB to enter without any permission in a private property. The NAB officials not only entered the house of the applicant but also made a video, he said, adding that the video produced by Bureau official has so far not been made a part of court record.
He said that the court did not order the NAB to conduct investigation. The investigation officer Nadir Abbas while recording his statement did not mention his visit to the applicant's house, he said, adding that the court had only authorized the provincial government in this regard and not the NAB. During the cross-examination, the defense counsel asked the investigation officer, "What is your educational qualification?" The investigation officer replied, "I did MSc in criminology from University of the Punjab."
The defense counsel further asked the investigation officer, "Have you been given any training regarding collection of evidence?" The investigation officer said, "I did a course about collection of evidence from Punjab Forensic Science Agency in 2016-17." The counsel again asked the investigation officer, "Have you been given any training regarding accounts and income tax?" The investigation officer replied in negative.
The counsel asked the investigation officer, "Have you worked over income tax returns?" He replied that he did not do any practical work over income tax returns. Misbah asked the investigation officer, "How many cases have you investigated before Ishaq Dar's case?" The investigation officer said, "I had investigated seven cases so far and filed references in three cases."
The defence counsel asked the investigation officer which office of NAB had started initial investigation of Dar's case. The investigation officer said that the NAB Lahore had started initial investigation of Dar's case. "Did the NAB close investigation against Dar in 2018 which it had started in 2017?" the counsel further asked. The investigation officer replied if an investigation had been started in 2017 then how it could be stopped in 2018. The court after hearing the arguments over Tabassum Ishaq Dar's application reserved its judgment and adjourned the case till October 2.

Read Comments