SHC questions appointment of private counsel as prosecutor in tractor subsidy case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has questioned the appointment of a private counsel as the prosecutor in a matter pertaining to the tractor subsidy scheme before an anti-corruption court, and directed the law secretary to file a statement on why a private counsel was engaged despite the fact that the prosecutor general’s office was well-staffed with competent counsels.

The high court issued its order on Monday regarding its recent hearing of a petition of businessman Shahzad Riaz against harassment and inquiries initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE). A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha noted that a private counsel had been engaged by the provincial government to deal with the matter which was a violation of the Supreme Court orders.

The high court observed that the Supreme Court had made it clear that the office of prosecutor general and advocate general were well staffed with competent people who should be able to deal with all court matters.

The SHC directed the law secretary to file a report on why a private counsel was appointed as the prosecutor in the case keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court and the fact that none of the accused persons appeared to be of high profile.

The high court observed that in case, the law secretary had no valid explanation for the engagement of a private counsel as the prosecutor, he would be advised to make a necessary adjustment in this regard.

Earlier, the SHC had taken exception to the conduct of ACE officials for suppressing court orders in an inquiry pertaining to the tractor subsidy scheme, and directed the chief secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if necessary, against the ACE director and investigation officer for their dishonest acts.

A counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the high court had directed ACE not to harass the petitioner and complete the inquiry within one month but the investigation officer in his own capacity moved an SHC single bench in Hyderabad and concealed the high court order in the instant matter.

When the SHC division bench came to know of that, it observed that Investigation Officer Irfan Ali Arbab, who was also facing contempt of court proceedings, had misled the single bench through concealment of facts and obtained order for trial court for not entertainment of the petitioner’s bail application.

The high court observed that prima facie it appeared that ACE had some extraneous grievance against the petitioner and from a brief glance of the record, it appeared that the establishment was deliberately hounding him.

The high court had directed the investigation officer and ACE director to submit a compliance report with regard to the withdrawal of the petition from the Hyderabad bench, to which Arbab and ACE Director Shahzad Fazal filed their replies and tendered unconditional apology leaving themselves at the mercy of the court.

The high court observed that the replies of the show-cause notices shall be considered on the next hearing.

In his plea, the petitioner had submitted that he was dealing with import and sale of agriculture tractors and was being implicated in false cases on the instigation of the Omni Group that was his competitor.

The court had on November10 disposed of the petition after the chief secretary and ACE director had stated that no further inquiry shall be initiated against the petitioner in respect of the tractor subsidy scheme for any further period.