KARACHI, Feb 7: A division bench of the Sindh High Court set aside on Thursday the conviction of Abdul Sattar Dero in property references and allowed the appeal and revisions filed by the ostensible owners /alleged Benamidars, and remanded the case back to the trial court.

The bench, consisting of Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, pronounced this in a short order. Reasons would be recorded later.

According to the facts of the case, Abdul Sattar Dero, director-general (operations) Port Qasim Authority, was charged through a reference filed by the accountability court No 4 (Judge M. Javaid Alam) for alleged corruption under the NAB Ordinance for acquiring properties in the names of relations and others.

Relations feeling aggrieved by the inclusion of their properties in the reference against Dero filed civil suits with the High Court.

The High Court held that the suits filed by the alleged Benamidars were maintainable. This order was set aside by a division bench and the suits filed by the relations were dismissed holding that the issue of Benami being a subject matter of charge against Dero, who was being tried under the NAB Ordinance, was to be tried by an accountability court, not a civil court.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the division bench of the High Court, the accountability court No 4 convicted him after hearing objections of the relations and confiscated the properties belonging to the relations. Dero filed an appeal against the said decision with the High Court so also the relations, and the latters’ appeals were converted into revisions.

The appeals of the relations in the Supreme Court was also dismissed, but the court held that the principles of natural justice were to be observed before condemning any person, and a Benamidar had a right to approach an accountability court during trial and before final judgment was passed and that he should also be heard. The court should also grant opportunity to the relations, etc by summoning them and allow them to produce evidence in support of their claim as to ownership in their own right to substantiate that they had sufficient sources of their own and thereafter decide the case.