LAHORE, July 10: An ehtesab bench of the Lahore High Court on Thursday set aside the conviction of seven directors of the National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation (NICFC) in a NAB reference, and ordered retrial on a part of reference against an executive director of the defunct corporation.

Executive director Chaudhry Abdul Majeed had been sentenced last year to 14-years hard jail and fined Rs500 million while his seven cohorts were given three years of hard jail with Rs10 million fine each on charges of appropriating Rs1.8 billion of NICFC funds.

Sending the part of reference against Mr Chaudhry back to the trial court, the bench, comprising Justice Ali Nawaz Chauhan and Rustam Ali Malik, observed: “It is surprising to see that the trial court did not bother to write the petitioner’s name and his other particulars on the written statement (attributed to him) making it difficult for the appellate court to believe that the statement was actually made by him.”

The bench further noted that the petitioner had not been furnished with the evidence against him, which necessitated his partial re-trial.

As observed by the bench, the trial court would record his written statement afresh and pronounce the verdict without framing charges and recording the prosecution evidence again. However, the petitioner could produce witnesses in support of his case after furnishing the court with a written statement.

The co-accused, Maj Barkat Ali Khan (retired), Sheikh Munir, Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool, Mujahid Zia Butt, Syed Makhdoom Salahudin, Mohammad Ejaz and M.A. Hamid Faizi, were given the benefit of the doubt.

“In order to convict a person on criminal charges, it is essential to prove his criminal intent since conviction cannot be based on presumptions.” The court noted that the person in charge of the NICFC who had prepared the complaint for the NAB, had conceded during the trial that he did not consult any independent documentary reference while finalising the complaint except the Lone Commission Report on defunct cooperatives. According to the court, the in-charge had not seen names of the accomplices in that report. None of the prosecution witnesses could point out an act of the co-accused that was motivated by the intention of appropriating NICFC funds.