ISLAMABAD, Jan 13 (TNS): The National accountability Bureau (NAB) has drafted 40-page review petition against the Supreme Court Verdict over the dismissal of NAB request of re-opening of 17-year old Hudaibiya Paper Mills case while setting aside Lahore High Court verdict handed down in 2014.
The corruption watchdog would file a review petition against the SC’s judgment on Monday, releases said adding that the bureau was seriously considering making a request for forming a larger bench to hear the case.
“We are very surprised that the bench on December 15 dismissed the NAB’s petition on the grounds of time limitation but unnecessarily discussed merit of the case in its detailed verdict,” NAB release said.
“NAB wants to get back the looted money of the country as the case was politicized in past but now the NAB wanted to take the case to its logical end, therefore removing technical glitches review petition should be admitted,” NAB stated in its plea.
According to the NAB official, the SC completely misinterpreted this legal point and they would explain it in the review petition
NAB’s former deputy prosecutor general Raja Amir Abbas said, “It is a fit case of review as there are several law points which need to be further considered by the apex court.”
He said there were two views regarding the LHC’s 2014 verdict to quash the Hudabiya Paper Mills scam.
On December 15, 2017, The apex court’s three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, on Friday issued a 36-page detailed judgment, which said members of Sharif family were denied due process.SC Releases Detailed Judgment of Hudaiybiya Paper Mills CaseThe Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Mazhar Alam Miankhel, upheld the High Court order quashing the reference. The bench noted that “the learned Judges of the High Court were justified to quash the Reference and once it was quashed the question of reinvestigation did not arise.”
In the detailed judgement the bench further noted that the respondents were “denied due process”. That “the legal process was abused, by keeping the Reference pending indefinitely and unreasonably.” Also observing that the “respondents were denied the right to vindicate themselves”.
