Court summons three prosecution witnesses in Dar assets reference | Pakistan Today

Court summons three prosecution witnesses in Dar assets reference

ISLAMABAD: An accountability court on Tuesday heard the corruption case against former finance minister Ishaq Dar for owning assets beyond means.

As the hearing resumed in Judge Muhammad Bashir’s Accountability Court-I, the prosecution presented its witness, Faisal Shehzad, to record his statement.

Shehzad, an employee of a private bank presented details of the account and cheques and stated that the ‘transcation details were not prepared’ by him.

National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) President Saeed Ahmed, Naeem Mehmood, and Mansoor Rizvi who are also accused in the case were present in the accountability court.

Furthermore, the court summoned witnesses Muhammad Ishtiaq, Umar Daraz, Qamar Zaman to appear before the court and adjourned the hearing till August 15.

Earlier, six prosecution witnesses recorded their statement, which includes Ali Akram Bhandar, Qamar Zaman, Faisal Shehzad, Mirza Faiz-ur-Rehman, Inam-ul-Haq, Shakeel Anjum, and Azhar Hussain.

On July 21, the Interior Ministry had approved the issuance of red warrants against former finance minister Ishaq Dar.

The red warrant is an international notice sent to the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) seeking the arrest and extradition of an individual.

The sanction came following the recommendation of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had written a letter to Interpol for the detention of Ishaq Dar while the case has also been forwarded to them after the approval of the interior secretary.

FIA had requested the assistance of Interpol in Dar’s arrest from London.


In its reference against the former finance minister, NAB had alleged that “the accused has acquired assets and pecuniary interests/resources in his own name and/or in the name of his dependents of an approximate amount of Rs831.678 million (approx)”.

The reference had also alleged that the assets were “disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not reasonably account for”.

The court then declared him a proclaimed offender over his perpetual absence from the trial proceedings and attached his movable and immovable properties.

Related posts