ISLAMABAD - Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) General Secretary Aftab Ahmed Bajwa has said that the Accountability Court should not have by-passed the law in framing of charges against Ishaq Dar.

Federal Finance Minister Ishaq Dar was indicted on September 27, while the copies of reference including documents, and statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC were delivered to him on September 25, when he appeared before the court.

The SCBA general secretary, while talking to The Nation said that the judge of the Accountability Court framed the charges “in hurry”.

He said that according to the Section 265-C of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the charges were framed seven days after handing over of copy of complaint and the statement to the accused.

Bajwa said that the accountability court judge had not kept in mind the relevant provision of law and rules of the courts.

“It seemed this was done to benefit the accused on technical basis,” he added.

The SCBA general secretary said that if the charges had to be framed in two days then the judge should have given reasons under Section 17-C of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz, counsel of Ishaq Dar, shared with The Nation that in Hakim Din case PLD 2006 SC 43, the apex court had expressed concern over framing of charges before seven days.

In that case, the Accountability Court was directed to complete the trial in 40 days, but the judge framed the charges in three days.

Amjad said in the present case the NAB court had been directed to complete the trial against the accused and Sharif family in six months, and the judge has framed the charges in two days.

Dar’s counsel said he had not come across any judgment of the superior courts, which allowed NAB courts to dispense with the provisions of CrPC.

He said that in the very exceptional cases where no prejudice was caused to the accused then under Section 17-C of the NAO 1999, the CrPC provision could be dispensed with, and follow such procedure as it might deem fit in the circumstance of the case for that he had to give the reasons.

Amjad said that in this case the prejudice was caused to the accused, while the judge of the Accountability Court gave no reason in September 25 or September 27 order.

The legal experts say this order could be challenged.