|
|
|
| June 15, 2005 | Wednesday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 7, 1426 |
Remand of ex-SC official, 2 accomplices extended
ISLAMABAD, June 14: A Rawalpindi accountability court on Tuesday remanded former Supreme Court registrar and his two accomplices in the custody of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for another 10 days in the Rs634 million embezzlement case. Judge Sagheer Ahmed Qadri granted physical remand of the ex-registrar, Amin Farooqi and chief operating officer Javed Iqbal Qureshi and former director Muhammad Nadeem Anwar of Islamic Investment Bank Limited (IIBL) for another 10 days and directed production of the principal accused in the court on June 24.
The bureau had taken 14 people into custody on Thursday on the complaint of the Supreme Court registrar, Budha Khan for their role in the financial scam. Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui had directed the registrar to lodge a complaint with the NAB.
The inquiry, initiated after failing to recover a bank guarantee of Rs493 million, which added up to Rs634 million after mark-up, had held Mr Farooqi responsible for the scandal, as the amount had been invested in a non-banking finance company (IIBL) with motives best known to Mr Farooqi.
Meanwhile, Amin Farooqi has also filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against his arrest for investing court funds in a non-scheduled bank, saying that he acted under the orders of an apex court bench headed by the former chief justice.
In his appeal filed under Order V Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 for reconsideration of his arrest orders, the ex- registrar stated that he had invested the amount in the Islamic Investment Bank Limited (IIBL) at 12 per cent profit per annum, as no scheduled bank was offering such a handsome profit.
“The appellant was never directed, under court orders, to deposit the amount with a particular bank, hence what he did was in consonance with the orders of this court and was based on a proper advice of a relevant official,” he stated.
Farooqi pleaded that the lower authorities were considering Supreme Court’s complaint against him as a conviction. Neither they are recording his point of view nor were they ready to take defence evidence into consideration, he said. He contended that the complaint against him had prejudice his position since most of other accused had been let off by the NAB.
He said investment in a non-scheduled bank may be an irregularity but not a criminal breach. Besides, he said, not a single witness during inquiry ever gave evidence to establish his criminal intent.
|
|
|
|
