ISLAMABAD:The Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Mohammad Anwar Khan Kasi, here on Wednesday reserved the judgement on the bail application of former Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Hamid Saeed Kazmi, who is serving his sentence at Adiala Jail awarded to him in the Haj corruption case. Kazmi wants his release on bail before Eidul Fitr.
The IHC bench was hearing in two different applications—one, the main petition where Kazmi has challenged his 16 years imprisonment sentence, and other for bail. Regarding bail matter, the prosecution and defence concluded argument and IHC bench reserved judgement afterwards.
Counsel for Kazmi, Sardar Lateef Khosa, while referring to the jail report, argued before the court that his client has already served two years and four months sentence. If the IHC bench accepts his client’s acquittal application at a later stage than Kazmi would be having no remedy for the sentence he served in jail without any justification. Advocate Khosa further argued that his client has been punished for his supervisory role. My client was not involved in hiring buildings and there were no allegations against him for kickbacks. In fact, Saudi government returned SR6.65 million to the pilgrims due to the efforts of his client.
From prosecution side, FIA Prosecutor Chaudhry Azhar said that Hamid Saeed Kazmi had been on a visit to Saudi Arabi where he examined the arrangements. The court of special judge central found him guilty on the account of approving under construction buildings without washrooms and that too in connivance with his front man, Ahmed Faiz. The FIA prosecutor also submitted Kazmi’s photos with Ahmed Faiz in Saudi Arabia.
Prosecution told the court that Kazmi caused a loss of Rs1.0888 billion to the treasury. Saudi government, after becoming aware of the situation, itself returned Rs5,000 to Pakistani pilgrims, and Kazmi had no role in it, the FIA prosecutor said.
In his criminal appeal against the SJC’s decision dated June 3, 2016, Kazmi has cited state as respondent. The petitioner adopted in his appeal that none of the prosecution witnesses have insinuated him with any malfeasance and his conviction is based on fanciful, arbitrary, capricious and absolutely conjectural hypothesis.
That according to the prosecution’s own version, the appellant Kazmi being minister had supervisory role but nothing to do with the hiring of buildings and making payments of rents to the building owners, yet the trial court proceeded to hold appellant guilty. The petitioner said that the conclusion of trial court was based on suppositions, and a consequence of misreading or non-reading of the facts. The rent payment of the under construction building was contingent upon completion and rent amount was retrieved through checks and no embezzlement of funds had taken place.
The petitioner further contended that this is a case of no evidence and sentence by the trial court is violation of his fundamental rights.
Not a single prosecution witness uttered any word against the petitioner regarding kickbacks or commission and there is no such evidence on record to prove this offence, the petitioner said.
The role of hiring buildings for pilgrims was to be performed by a seven members committee, and the petitioner had no role whatsoever.
The petitioner’s name was not in the FIR, but he was implicated due to political rivalry. That learned trial court while convicting the petitioner seemed to be influenced by the media trial, the petitioner said.