19 September 2004	Sunday	03 Shaban 1425

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

LAHORE, Sept 18: An accountability court on Saturday turned down a request for ensuring presence of ARD president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi throughout the course of trial.

Judge Shafqat Ahmad Sajid responded to the request of Advocate Manzoor Ahmad Malik, counsel for the MNA from Multan, with an assurance that Mr Hashmi would be brought to the court as and when required. The MNA is currently serving a prison term at Adiala Jail on sedition charges.

Mr Malik had contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure made presence of the accused mandatory throughout the trial.

The court later adjourned the proceedings till Oct 1.

Meanwhile, in replies submitted to the accountability court last week, family members of the MNA denied the allegations made in the reference and said Makhdoom Javed Hashmi was being victimized for political reasons.

Makhdoom's wife Khursheed Begum stated in her reply that her personal income from agricultural land, agro-based industries and sale of haveli and shops in 1989 was around Rs6.3 million up to 2000. She submitted that she was the only daughter of Syed Mehr Shah and got a big share of his property at the time of her marriage and afterwards. She said she had purchased a house at Qasim Road, shares in the Al-Makhdoom Cotton Industry, prize bonds worth Rs2 million and a jeep for Rs300,000 from her own resources, which had nothing to do with the resources of her husband. All this property had been shown by NAB as coming from ill-gotten money with a malafide intention, she said.

Mr Hashmi's brother Mukhtar Shah Hashmi said in his reply that he had an independent business and had not purchased any property with Javed Hashmi's money. He was charged with possession of shares in the cotton industry and receipt of a bank draft for Rs2 million which he said he was given by a friend for business.

Zahid Bashir Hashmi, nephew and son-in-law of the MNA, also said he had his own business and the charges that he had purchased property with ill-gotten money were baseless.

Mr Hashmi's daughter MNA Maimoona submitted that shares in her name in the Zahid Daal Factory were purchased by her father. Other daughters Aamena, Momina, Sadia and Bushra stated that their shares in Mehfil Cinema, Multan, were purchased by their father. The sixth daughter, Jaweria, stated that the property in her name was purchased by her mother.