LAHORE, Nov 24: A division bench of the Lahore High Court on Monday acquitted Farrukh Javed Ghumman, a former Punjab minister and chairperson of Sargodha district council, of corruption charges.

Justices Syed Tasadduq Husain Jilani and M. Bilal also set aside the sentence awarded to Mr Ghumman by an accountability court last year.

The bench observed that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence sufficient enough to substantiate charges levelled against Mr Ghumman by the National Accountability Bureau.

The bench observed that all the prosecuting witnesses were government officials who made false statements before the trial court.

Mr Ghumman was accused of acquiring wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and purchasing property worth million of rupees from this money.

The NAB alleged that Mr Ghumman purchased 682,4 acres of agricultural land and a cottage at Murree. But he fraudulently showed the property as coming by way of exchange and not through purchase. He was also charged with evading stamp duty and other government duties worth more than Rs800,000.

He was arrested in March 2001 and a reference was filed against him with a NAB court for his trial for corrupt practices. The trial court acquitted him of the charges of evading government duty but sentenced him in March 2002 to three years of imprisonment, a fine of Rs100,000 and disqualification from contesting and holding a public office for 10 years.

Mr Ghumman filed an appeal with the Lahore High Court against the conviction and submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its point that the property was purchased and not acquired in exchange because no such material was available on the revenue record.

Mr Ghumman submitted that he had an income of Rs331 million from the agricultural lands during 1980 and 1994. The prosecution showed it as Rs560 million and that, too, without a valid evidence. He had enough known income to acquire property which he possessed.

The court observed that the investigation of the case was faulty and the prosecution failed to substantiate charges. It said the investigation officer could have made available the best available evidence of Mr Ghumman’s known sources of income by examining the revenue department’s record but no such evidence was placed on court record.

Similarly, the charge of evasion of stamp duty was not seriously pursued and the prosecution also failed in filing an appeal against the trial court decision of acquitting Mr Ghumman on this account.