proceeding of the court for quashing Rs1.2 billion Hudaibya Paper Mills’s case.
“You have to convince us pertaining to the merit of this instant matter and how the respondents, the Sharif family, managed to influence the case by quashing the said reference; then, we will be able to proceed in the matter,” Justice Mushir Alam told the learned special prosecutor.
Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, another member of the bench, asked him as to why the anti-graft body did not proceed in nine months against the Sharif family in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case as he said that the reference according to the special prosecutor NAB was re-filed on March 27, 2000 whereas the Sharif family was sent in exile on December 10, 2000.
The court observed that as per NAB, the respondents were here on March 27, 2000 then why they were not proceeded against in the Hydaibya Paper Mills case. On court query, Imranul Haq submitted that the accused returned to the country on November 27, 2007.
NAB in its fresh appeal informed the court that the matter is before the SC and justice requires that the impugned judgment be scrutinised on the touchstone of precedents settled by this Court. “No doubt an accused is the favourite child of the law, but keeping in view the shape of scale of justice, the complaint is also not devoid of the justice of the court,” it said.
“That fault, loses control or non-serious working of the judges of the High Court should not damage the prosecution case on mere technical grounds”, the NAB contended.
It submitted that the conclusion reached by the LHC in quashing the reference and debarring the NAB from re-investigation are blatant misinterpretation of the law leading to grave miscarriage of justice, hence the delay is liable to be condoned and the petition deserves to be heard on its merits.
“The LHC has acted with material irregularity and discarded the law, contrary to the principles lay down by this Court hence on this ground as well the delay is liable to be condoned,” says the NAB fresh appeal.
The court was informed that in the instant reference the respondents have caused a loss of over Rs1 billion to the national exchequer, which aspect of the case should be dilated upon without being influence by mere technicality of delay.
“The respondent No. 2 prevented filing of the CPLA before this court and on this ground alone the delay is liable to be condoned and now when the CPLA is before the Supreme Court it should be decided on its merits without technically knocking out the petitioner on the ground of limitation”, the NAB maintained.
Ousted Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, his brother and Chief Minister Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Muhammad Abbass Sharif (late), Hussain Nawaz, Hamza Shehbaz, Mrs Shamim Akhtar and Mrs Sabiha Abbass, Mrs Mariam Safdar, Federation of Pakistan and Judge Accountability Court No IV Rawalpindi had been made in the appeal as respondents.