Sum recovered from accused ‘mismatch’ with police memo


Police needed to face blushing in the course of the cross-examination of witnesses in a case associated to the harassment of a boy and a woman in Sector E-11 in Islamabad.

During the cross-examination of witnesses within the case, Usman Mirza’s lawyer Javed Iqbal Venus and accused Umar Bilal Marwat’s lawyer Sher Afzal Marwat requested the court docket to current the recovered cash.

On the court docket directives, the cash was unsealed. The variety of the alleged extortion cash (notes) recovered from co-accused, Mohib and Umar Bilal Marwat, couldn’t match with the police restoration memo.

When the restoration memo of Rs70,000 from accused Mohib and Rs100,000 from Umar Bilal Marwat was opened in the course of the listening to, the counsel for each the accused began matching it with the police restoration memo.

Around 34 notes of Rs5000 recovered from the accused couldn’t match with the police restoration memo, nonetheless, the full sum recovered from accused was intact.

When Additional Sessions Judge Ata Rabbani performed the proceedings, Farhan Shaheen’s lawyer Malik Ikhlaq Awan, plaintiff’s lawyer Hassan Javed Shorash and public prosecutor Hassan Abbas appeared earlier than the court docket.

Five accused, together with principal accused Usman Mirza, couldn’t be dropped at court docket from Adiala jail because of the closure of roads. The court docket summoned the accused through Skype.

The accused Rehan and Umar Bilal Marwat, who had been out on bail, appeared earlier than the court docket on a court docket discover.

The co-accused within the case are Hafiz Ata-ur-Rehman, Idrees Qayyum Butt, Mohib Bangash and Farhan Shaheen.

Defendants’ attorneys accomplished cross-examination of the plaintiff and the then Golra Police Station House Officer Asim Ghaffar. Malik Javed Iqbal Venus, counsel for the primary accused, Usman Mirza and Sher Afzal Marwat, counsel for the accused Umar Bilal Marwat, accomplished cross-examination of the plaintiff Asim Ghaffar.

The attorneys of the opposite accused adopted the identical cross-examination of the plaintiff. Further listening to within the case was adjourned until November 4.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 2nd, 2021.

Back to top button

Adblocker detected! Please consider reading this notice.

We've detected that you are using AdBlock Plus or some other adblocking software which is preventing the page from fully loading. We don't have any banner, Flash, animation, obnoxious sound, or popup ad. We do not implement these annoying types of ads! We need money to operate the site, and almost all of it comes from our online advertising. Please add to your ad blocking whitelist or disable your adblocking software.