Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Kia lower courts ka maqsad...sirf powerful logon ko bachaana hai? Kis qism ki judge hai yeh? Jo chairman SECP k against evidence accept nahi karrahi aur FIA ko keh rahi hai ke inhon ne Zafar Hijazi ko fair chance nahi diya
See this : @Zibago @The Accountant @PakSword @El_Swordsmen
Charge against Hijazi ‘needs to be probed’
ISLAMABAD: A special court of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has observed that Zafar Hijazi, the suspended chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), and witnesses in the case are “sailors of same boat” and the case pertaining to record tampering requires more inquiry.
Special Judge Central Iram Niazi, who granted bail to Hijazi in the case of tampering with record of the Chaudhry Sugar Mills, made several observations regarding the conduct of the investigation and investigators – the FIA – in the case.
In her detailed order, the judge noted: “It has yet to be ascertained if Hijazi pressurised his subordinates, or closure of the record in back dates was made with consensus by all of them.” She added, “At this stage, a deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be given.”
However, the judge said, a tentative look at the evidence showed that the closure note of back date was made after meetings and full discussions among SECP officials – Maheen Fatima, Tariq Ahmed, Ali Azeem, Tahir Mahmood and Abid Hussain – “as these persons also signed the same likewise applicant”.
“All of them are sailors of same boat,” the judge stated in her order. “Other than the statements of officers who signed the same alleged closure note in back date,” she said, “independent corroborated piece of evidence is needed.”
“It is yet to be ascertained that either such alleged undue influence and pressure was made by the applicant [Hijazi] or the said closure note was made with consensus, which needs consideration and makes it a case of further inquiry,” the judge stated.
The order expressed displeasure over FIA’s investigation officer Farooq Latif for not providing Hijazi an opportunity to put his defence while recording statements of witnesses under Section 164 CrPC before a magistrate.
“On July 14,” the order reads, “Latif produced witnesses – Fatima, Azeem, Mehmood and Hussain – before the magistrate to record statements as witnesses but the applicant [Hijazi] who offered himself for investigation was not called to put his defence, and statements were, eventually, recorded by ignoring the provided provision of the clause of Section 164 of the CrPC.”
The order revealed that “evidence shows that in the month of June 2016, it was discussed in detail among Tariq Ahmed and Maheen Fatima that [the] closure report was required to be made in 2013” and interference of Hijazi “is not found anywhere as it was discussed” between the two.
“Emails shared among witnesses – Tariq Ahmed and Maheen Fatima – show that the note of closure of investigation was required as it was well discussed in between the relevant staff – Tahir Mehmood (Commissioner), Maheen Fatima (Director), Abid Hussain (Executive Director) and Azeem Ikram (Executive Director),” the judge noted.
Hudaibya tu NAB open hi nahi karrahi
See this : @Zibago @The Accountant @PakSword @El_Swordsmen
Charge against Hijazi ‘needs to be probed’
ISLAMABAD: A special court of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has observed that Zafar Hijazi, the suspended chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), and witnesses in the case are “sailors of same boat” and the case pertaining to record tampering requires more inquiry.
Special Judge Central Iram Niazi, who granted bail to Hijazi in the case of tampering with record of the Chaudhry Sugar Mills, made several observations regarding the conduct of the investigation and investigators – the FIA – in the case.
In her detailed order, the judge noted: “It has yet to be ascertained if Hijazi pressurised his subordinates, or closure of the record in back dates was made with consensus by all of them.” She added, “At this stage, a deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be given.”
However, the judge said, a tentative look at the evidence showed that the closure note of back date was made after meetings and full discussions among SECP officials – Maheen Fatima, Tariq Ahmed, Ali Azeem, Tahir Mahmood and Abid Hussain – “as these persons also signed the same likewise applicant”.
“All of them are sailors of same boat,” the judge stated in her order. “Other than the statements of officers who signed the same alleged closure note in back date,” she said, “independent corroborated piece of evidence is needed.”
“It is yet to be ascertained that either such alleged undue influence and pressure was made by the applicant [Hijazi] or the said closure note was made with consensus, which needs consideration and makes it a case of further inquiry,” the judge stated.
The order expressed displeasure over FIA’s investigation officer Farooq Latif for not providing Hijazi an opportunity to put his defence while recording statements of witnesses under Section 164 CrPC before a magistrate.
“On July 14,” the order reads, “Latif produced witnesses – Fatima, Azeem, Mehmood and Hussain – before the magistrate to record statements as witnesses but the applicant [Hijazi] who offered himself for investigation was not called to put his defence, and statements were, eventually, recorded by ignoring the provided provision of the clause of Section 164 of the CrPC.”
The order revealed that “evidence shows that in the month of June 2016, it was discussed in detail among Tariq Ahmed and Maheen Fatima that [the] closure report was required to be made in 2013” and interference of Hijazi “is not found anywhere as it was discussed” between the two.
“Emails shared among witnesses – Tariq Ahmed and Maheen Fatima – show that the note of closure of investigation was required as it was well discussed in between the relevant staff – Tahir Mehmood (Commissioner), Maheen Fatima (Director), Abid Hussain (Executive Director) and Azeem Ikram (Executive Director),” the judge noted.
Hudaibya tu NAB open hi nahi karrahi
