SC directs NAB to act against accused in BoP scandal
03 February, 2012
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) additional prosecutor general to move a reference against Sheikh Muhammad Afzal, the main accused in the Bank of Punjab (BoP) loan scam, and others in a competent court before February 10.
It also directed the court concerned to proceed against Sheikh Afzal and others by holding a day-to-day hearing without allowing adjournments unless unavoidable.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez issued directives on a constitutional petition of the Bank of Punjab, NIB Bank, Saith Muhammad Yaqoob, etc, against Haris Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd and others.
Ahmed Awais, counsel for Sheikh Muhammad Afzal, Haris Afzal and Haris Steel Mills, said they would fully comply with court orders in letter and spirit.
While the counsel for the Bank of Punjab said that despite a lapse of considerable time, spreading over a span of about three years, the trial of Sheikh Muhammad Afzal and others had not yet commenced. Rashdeen Nawaz, counsel for the Bank of Punjab, pointed out that despite clear directions of the court, the properties had not been transferred to the prospective purchasers as hinted in a report of salvage committee.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, SM Zafar, Fakhruddin G Ibrahim, and Anwar Kamal, counsels for the parties, stated that replies had been filed by their respective parties and they were regularly making the payments outstanding against them. They said that so far no challan had been submitted against them.
NAB official Fauzi Zafar, in response to a query of the bench, replied that he had to seek instructions for further details. Further hearing was adjourned to a date-in-office until last week of this month.
In response to miscellaneous applications filed by Ahmed Awais, counsel for Shiekh Muhammad Afzal, stated that notice of CMA had already been issued to the bank as well as to NAB on July 26, 2011 and requested for issuance of notice to the respondent in CMA, which was directed accordingly. It was decided that these two applications should be taken up on the next date of hearing.
End.
|
