Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

October 21, 2003 Tuesday Sha'aban 24, 1424

Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
.




Ex-MPA’s appeal partly heard


LAHORE, Oct 20: An accountability appellate bench of the Lahore High Court on Monday partly heard the appeal of Sargodha district council chairman Farrukh Javed Ghuman against his conviction awarded by the ATC. The court will resume hearing on Wednesday (tomorrow).

The bench comprised Justice Tassaduq Husain Jilani and Justice Muhammad Bilal Khan.

The court observed that the prosecution had not produced the evidence of known sources of the petitioner’s income.

The appeal was filed through Advocate Malik Manzoor Ahmad against sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with a Rs100,000 fine in a reference of “having acquired huge immovable property disproportionate to his known sources of income by corruption.”

The accountability court had also forfeited 12 properties totalling 1,136 kanal and four marlas at Ghaus Muhammadwala village, which had been acquired by the accused in his name and in the name of his relatives “ through mutations of exchange.”

The court maintained that the prosecution could prove illegality in the transfer of mutation only in 1,136 kanals and four marlas from a total of 4,000 kanal.

The AC had declared that “the amount of fine shall be recovered by the government from the properties of the accused as arrears of the land revenue.” The court also entitled the accused to get the benefit of section 382-B CrPC, which means his previous detention would be accounted for.

The appellant stated that he was innocent and the trial court failed to produce solid evidence against him, but convicted him all the same.

He requested the court to set aside the conviction and acquit him.—APP






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005