ISLAMABAD  -  A division bench of the Islamabad High Court was Friday reconstituted for the third time to hear the appeals of Sharif family against their conviction in the Avenfiled corruption reference.

Now the dual bench of IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb will conduct hearing of the appeals of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and Captain (Retd) Safdar from August 13.

This is the third bench, which was constituted to hear the appeals of Sharif family. At first, the bench comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb conducted initial hearing in this matter while the second bench constituted in this matter was comprised Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miagul Hassan Aurangzeb.  

Although senior judge of IHC Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui was available during the next week, yet he was not made part of the division bench hearing the appeals of Sharif family.

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, and Capt (Retd) Muhammad Safdar filed the appeals in the IHC challenging the Accountability Court (AC)’s verdict in the Avenfield property reference and made the state through Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as respondent.

In the appeals, it was stated that Nawaz Sharif was convicted under Section 9 (a)(v) of NAO, 1999, and Serial No.2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years, and to fine of 8 million pounds under Section 10 of the NAO, 1999 for the offence under Section 9 (a)(v) of the NAO, and to one year imprisonment for the offence at Serial No.2 of the Schedule of the NAO, 1999, with stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The appeals added that Maryam Safdar was convicted under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) of the NAO, 1999 and for the offence at Serial No.2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of 2 million pounds under Section 10 of the NAO, 1999 for the offence under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) ibid, and to one year simple imprisonment for offence at Serial No.2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, with stipulation that both sentences shall run concurrently.

Similarly, Capt (Retd) Muhammad Safdar was convicted for offences under Section 9 (a)(v) (xii) read with Section 10 of the NAO, 1999, and for the offence at Serial No.2 of the Schedule of NAO, 1999, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section p (a)(v)(xii) read with Section10 of the NAO, 1999, and to one year under Serial No.2 of the Schedule attached with NAO, 1999.

The appellants contended that from a comparison of the allegations made in the initially filed Interim Reference dated 08.09.2017 and the allegations made and formulated in the Supplementary Reference dated 12.01.2018, it is abundantly clear that the same are radically different from each other. As such, it was incumbent on the learned Trial Judge to have re-framed the Charge after the receipt of Supplementary Reference, and his failure to do so too vitiates the trial, especially since, as is evident from the record of the case, the learned trial Court has proceeded to record the conviction of the accused on the basis of the allegations as contained in the Supplementary Reference, and not on basis of the allegations to which he was put to notice as per the Charge framed against him on 08.11.2017.

They were of the view that the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence are based on no evidence.

“That none of the ingredients constituting the offence falling under Section 9(a)(v) of NAO, 1999, or under Serial No. 2 of the Schedule thereto, stand proved in the instant case, and, as such, the Appellant is entitled to acquittal from the said two Charges as well,” said the appeal moved by Nawaz Sharif.

It maintained that the judgment purports to convict the appellant for acquiring assets described as Flats No.16, 16A, 17 and 17A, Park Lane, London (known asAvenfield Properties) that are allegedly beyond his known sources of income, but nowhere in the judgment or, for that matter, in the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution is there any indication of the value of the Avenfield Properties at the time it is alleged to have been purchased by the appellant.

Maryam in her appeal argued that the prosecution failed to furnish any oral account in support of its case whereas the entire documentary evidence produced by it was inadmissible for want of formal proof or being attestation of copies or being photocopies.

She added that the AC judge convicted them under section 9(a)(v) of the NAO, 1999. The conviction is based on the testimony of JIT head Wajid Zia who was an investigation officer of the case and did not have any personal knowledge regarding the facts deposed by him, his deposition was both inadmissible and irrelevant, he was not competent to play proxy to any witness not produced nor could have he proved any document of which he was neither author nor privy.

The appellant adopted that the only evidence regarding beneficial ownership of the London apartments was the letter of financial investigation agency of British Virgin Island (FIA-BVI) that it wrote to Mossack Fonseca and received a reply in 2012. However, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence worth name to vouchsafe the contents of the disputed letters.

Therefore, it was prayed that this court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence dated awarded to the appellants by the accountability court Islamabad and they may be acquitted of all the charges framed against them in the reference.