ISLAMABAD, March 11: The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the transfer of a case from Attock Fort Accountability Court to Karachi Accountability Court.

Mohammad Tahir Siddiqui, accused of embezzling over Rs1 billion from the Employees Old Age Institution, a federal government institution, had petitioned the Supreme Court, stating that there was no justification for conducting his trial in the Attock Fort Accountability Court.

Justice Munir A. Sheikh, head of the bench, observed that the purpose of the law was to arrest criminals and recover the embezzled amount.

Earlier, similar requests had been turned down by the Supreme Court. PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari had petitioned the Supreme Court on more than one occasions, making similar requests.

Prominent lawyer, Abid Hasan Minto, appearing for the petitioner, stated that alleged transactions which according to NAB constituted an offence, had taken place in Karachi.

All records, witnesses, petitioner and every one else remotely connected with the transactions was Karachi based. In such circumstances, there was no justification for filing the reference at the Attock Fort.

The Supreme Court bench which passed the order on Monday, consisted of Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Rana Bhagwandas and Justice Faqeer Mohammad Khokar.

Mr Minto stated that until today only cases of politicians had been referred to the Attock Fort AC due to the government apprehension of law and order situation.

He said the trial at the Attock Fort was a pressure tactic and the power of referring the cases to any AC court should be sparingly used only where there was an actual and real threat to the trial.

He further said that the petitioner had an ailing wife at Karachi, his mother was a heart and diabetic patient, while his father had suffered from Parkinson disease.

“His transfer from Karachi to Attock would also be emotionally and psychologically devastating for these persons.”

Prosecution-General Raja Mohammad Bashir opposed the request for transfer to Karachi and placed some classified information before the court. He said that information was privileged one. The court, after looking at the evidence, returned the material to the PGA and accepted the petition.