ISLAMABAD: Justifying the reasons for declaring former finance minister Ishaq Dar a proclaimed offender, Accountability Court Judge Mohammad Bashir observed on Tuesday that medical reports produced by the counsel for the accused seemed to be procured with a purpose to prolong the hearing on the reference.

In a six-page detailed order of declaring Mr Dar the proclaimed offender, the judge, hearing a corruption reference regarding assets beyond known means of income filed against Mr Dar by the National Accountability Bureau on Supreme Court orders, observed that Dr Christopher Baker in his medical report earlier furnished before the accountability court had categorically stated that Mr Dar was not suffering from any “ischemic condition” (deficient supply of blood to body due to obstruction of the inflow of arterial blood).

Whereas another report on the medical condition of Mr Dar, Dr Ranjit Deshpandi, who conducted many medical tests, also could not point out any ischemic disease, the order said.

In this circumstance, the order said, Mr Dar was not appearing before the court deliberately.

The judge said the proclamation notices had rightly been published and the accused (Mr Dar) was well aware of these notices. Sufficient time has been availed by the accused in the case and the accused was avoiding execution of the warrant issued against him, and now he has absented himself from appearance in the court.

Therefore, the applications submitted for Mr Dar’s exemption from personal appearance stand dismissed, the court said.

Ahmed Ali Qadusi, who stood surety through a bond of Rs5 million, which was also forfeited on Nov 21, failed to produce Mr Dar and could not give reasons why penalty should not be imposed since Mr Dar was not appearing before the court.

His counsel, Nouman Farooqi, pleaded before the court that Mr Qadusi stood surety out of benevolence.

Keeping in view that the accused had been absconded and that sufficient time was afforded to surety to produce Mr Dar and that he failed to show acceptable and reasonable cause, he was not entitled to any leniency, the court held.

Published in Dawn, December 13th, 2017