Aqeel’s lawyer says Zafar Qureshi was not cross questioned nor was any other right of his client accepted
The Supreme Court (SC) has sought all record pertaining to transferring of Rs 6 billion National Police Foundation (NPF) case from police to the FIA.
Justice Nasirul Mulk said, “What is such lacuna in court’s decision, which has led to filing of review petition by Anjum Aqeel. As to how the case was transferred when SC had not issued any directives for transferring the case from police to FIA. Why NAB has not filed any reference over it. Why any headway could not be made in trial. What will happen with the petitioners along with the owners of the land, foundation whose right was affected.”
Justice Ejaz Chaudhry said, “Aqeel paid the cost of the land as per rates in vogue in 2004 and not as per prevailing market rate. What need was felt for execution of second agreement after first agreement.”
A three-member bench of SC presided over by Justice Nasirul Mulk took up the case for hearing on Wednesday.
Former attorney general (AG) Ali Khan appeared in the court on behalf of Anjum Aqeel and said, “Zafar Iqbal Qureshi was president of the PF. When the matters came to open then the PF changed the agreement on its own. First agreement was a good one and second agreement was executed by committee and then third agreement was signed. The NPF head fixed the cost of land and his client accepted it. The rate was fixed what was prevalent in 2004. This agreement was made part of court’s decision.”
He also said, “Anjum had made extra payment. If he was to indulge in wrongdoings then there was no need to execute agreement by him. If chapter is closed against him then he is ready to pay. Initiation of criminal proceedings against any one after agreement is highly inappropriate. Is NAB functioning as per law?”
Khan said no benefit of agreement was passed on to his client and it was PF which benefited from it.
Justice Ejaz Chaudhry said, “Land was not returned by Anjum Aqeel too and as to why he wants to pay the price of land as per 2004 rates in return for it.”
Khan said, “Dispute arose following the report of Zafar Ahmad Qureshi. What has been said on pages 143 and 144 of the report affected his client. As per Zafar Qureshi report 1,325 acres land fell in the area of PF scheme. NPF had acquired the land. Anjum Aqeel was acquiring agent and he paid the amount to the people who had occupied the land illegally. Three agreements were executed with Anjum Aqeel Khan He was to hand over 252 kanals of land which he had given. As per second agreement 318 kanals and 12 marlas of land was to be handed over. As per third agreement, 58 kanal land was given at the rate of Rs 58,000 per kanal. 356 kanals of land was handed over and only 126 kanals and 6 marlas of land was left more. 563 kanals of land was transferred to NPF.”
Khan also said 1,325 kanals of land was still in the possession of the NPF.
Justice Nasirul Mulk said, “Anjum Aqeel had paid the price as per 2004 rates and not as per market rate.”
The judge inquired what need was felt for execution of second agreement in the presence of first agreement.
Khan said, “The second agreement was not in much favour of Aqeel. Suo motu notice was taken on a media report on January 30, 2011 and report was sought from the interior secretary. Case was registered. Inquiry was initiated against Aqeel on February 22, 2011. The matter was declared as Rs 6 billion scandal. The matter related to second agreement is pending hearing with the court. Second agreement was not as per will of my client. As criminal proceedings were launched against my client therefore, second agreement was executed. 3 FIA reports had come and they did not match with each other. Only Zafar Qureshi report was declared correct and civil and criminal proceedings was initiated against his client on the basis of this report. Zafar Qureshi was not cross questioned nor was any other right of my client accepted. Inquiry report is not evidence on the basis of which civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated. It was aimed at assisting the court. NAB was to investigate the matter as this report. My client is in difficult situation. Case was registered against his client in July 2011. NAB is investigating.”
Justice Amir Hani Muslim inquired if any reference has been filed.
Khan said no such reference has been filed.
The hearing of the case was adjourned until May 26.