Updated: Monday July 16, 2018/AlEthnien Thoul Ki'dah 04, 1439/Somavara Asadha 25, 1940, at 07:19:31 PM



Reference No. 20/2017 (Avenfield Apartments No. 16, 16-A, 17, 17-A).






1.                 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif son of Mian Muhammad Sharif, aged about 69 years, resident of Shamim Farms Jati Umrah, Raiwind Road, Lahore;

2.                 Maryam Nawaz (Maryam Safdar) daughter of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, aged about 43 years, resident of Shamim Farms Jati Umrah, Raiwind Road, Lahore;

3.                 Captain (Retd.) Muhammad Safdar son of Muhammad Ishaq, aged about 54 years, resident of Shamim Farms Jati Umrah, Raiwind Road, Lahore;

4.                 Hussain Nawaz Sharif son of Mian Muhammad Sharif, aged about 45 years, resident of Shamim Farms Jati Umrah, Raiwind Road, Lahore;

5.                 Hassan Nawaz Sharif son of Mian Muhammad Sharif, aged about 45 years, resident of Shamim Farms Jati Umrah, Raiwind Road, Lahore;





Brief facts of the case are that interim reference u/s 18 (g) read with section 24 (d) of NAO, 1999 is filed against five accused described in title above. Two of them namely Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz did not appear before this court despite summons, warrants and ultimately proclamation issued u/s 87/88 Cr.P.C. After completion of requisite process, they were declared as absconding / proclaimed offender in this case.

2.                 Allegedly, documents PANAMA Papers were leaked from the record of PANAMA based Law Firm namely Mossack Fonseen wherein members of the then first family of Pakistan were 01 to 05 accused namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Safdar (Nawaz), Capt. Retd. Muhammad Safdar, Hussain Nawaz Sharif, and Hassan Nawaz Sharif were alleged to have connection with offshore companies. The matter was taken up by Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan. During proceedings before Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan, the accused persons introduced their stances and submitted letters alongwith other documents.

3.                 Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan framed questions and constituted Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the case and collect evidence in that record.

4.                 JIT was given all the powers relating to investigation including those available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and Federal Investigation Agency, 1975 vide order dated 05-05-2017 passed in CMA No. 2939 of 2017 in the Constitution Petition No. 29-2016 etc.

5.                 JIT conducted investigation and submitted its investigation report before Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan in shape of ten plus two volumes.

6.                 The Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan directed NAB to prepare and file following references within six weeks against the accused persons related to Avenfield Flats bearing no. 16, 16A, 17, 17A, situated at Avenfield House, Park Lane, London on the basis of material collected and referred to by the JIT in its report and such other material as may be available with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and NAB having any nexus with the assets or which may subsequently become available including material that may come before it pursuant to the mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests sent by the JIT to different jurisdictions. a, reference Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (Respondent No. 1) Maryam Nawaz Sharif (Maryam Safdar) (Respondent No. 6), Hussain Nawaz Sharif (Respondent No. 7), Hassan Nawaz Sharif (Respondent No. 8), and Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Safdar (Respondent No. 9) relating to the Avenfield Properties Flats No. 16, 16-A, 17, and 17-A. Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, United Kingdom. In preparing and filing this Reference, the NAB shall also consider the material already collected during the course of investigations conducted earlier.

b.        ……………..

c.         ……………..

d.        ……………..

e.                 NAB shall also include in the proceedings all other persons including Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, Kashif Masoon Qazi, Javed Kiani, and Saeed Ahmed, who have any direct or indirect nexus or connection with the actions of respondent no. 1,6,7,8, & 10 leading to acquisition of assets and funds beyond their known sources of income.

f.                   NAB may filed supplementary reference(s) if and when other asset which is not prima facie reasonably accounted for is discovered.

g.                 ……………..

h.                 In case, the Accountability court finds any deed, document or affidavit filed by or on behalf the respondents for any other person to be fake, false, or fabricated, it shall take appropriate action against the concerned person(s) in accordance with law.

7.                 Previously investigation was authorized against accused no. 1 and other on the same allegation in year 2000 but fresh investigation was authorized after above directions on the Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan vide letter dated 03-08-2017 and Mr. Muhammad Imran Assistant Director NAB Lahore was authorized in this regard.

8.                 It is further alleged that accused person(s) were duly summoned during the investigation but they took the plea that a review petition has been filed in the Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan against its order dated 28-07-2018 and sought postponement of NAB investigation till outcome of the review petition.

9.                 Interim reference dated 07-09-2017 has been filed. While leveling allegation against the accused that they have committed corruption and corrupt practices as defined under sections 9(a)(4)(v) & (xii) and offence at serial no. 2 of the schedule which are punishable under section 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 read with schedule attached thereto.

10.            This court issued processes against accused in accordance with law. Two accused namely Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz did not turn up and they were declared as proclaimed offenders however, copies of reference all documents were supplied to the remaining three accused who appeared before the court.

11.            A joint charge for three accused was framed. Subsequently it was amended while accepting the application filed by accused no. 2 & 3. The relevant portion of last charge framed against the accused is reproduced below.

“You accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif were holder of public office. You and your family dependants are owner in possession of Avenfield Mayfair Properties namely apartment No. 16, 16A, 17, & 17A Park Lane London and those flats were in possession of you and your family since 1993. Source of investment for purchase of said properties through offshore companies M/s. Nielson Enterprises Ltd. and M/s. Nescoll Ltd. which owned the said Avenfield Apartment is not justified and bearer shares were crystallized into the said properties.

You accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, and absconding accused Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz failed to justify legal bonafide source means for purchase of said properties.

You accused Maryam Nawaz was beneficial owner of above mentioned companies which owned Avenfield Properties. A false, fabricated trust deed dated 02-02-2006 in Calibri Font was filed whereas no such Font was available for such purposes of that deed in that year. That deed was signed by you accused Maryam Nawaz as well as you co-accused Capt. Retd. Muhammad Safdar was as a witness. By filing such declaration, you both allegedly tried to mislead the investigation agency.

You Maryam Nawaz Sharif accused consciously concealed the actual facts regarding history of ownership of the said assets and the companies and there is failure on part of you all accused including absconding accused to account for sources means availability of fund and its lawful transfer abroad. Absconding accused had also no source of income at relevant time.

Thereby you accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz Sharif, and Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Safdar committed offences as defined under section 9 (a)(iv)(v) & (xii) as per details given above and offences cited at serial No. 02 of the schedule and punishable under section 10 of NAO, 1999 read with schedule attached thereto”.

12.            The order in respect of the offence cited at serial no. 3(a) of schedule attached to NAO, 1999 was made at such that this court shall take cognizance of that offence cited 3(a) of schedule to NAO, 1999 on pronouncement of judgment.

13.            The accused facing trial pleaded not guilty to the charge.

14.            Prosecution produced as many as 08 witnesses when supplementary reference dated 18-01-2018 was filed on 22-01-2018.

15.            Statements of total 18 witnesses have been recorded in this case. Prosecution closed its evidence as concluded o 08-05-2018.

16.            The statements of all accused facing trial (three in number) were recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C. They opted not to produce defence witnesses. They also not opted to be examined u/s 340(2) Cr.P.C.

17.            I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

18.            A resume of prosecution evidence is given below:-

PW-1 Mst. Sidra Mansoor Joint Registrar of Companies Company Registration Office Lahore SECP deposed that in compliance with the NAB letter dated 15-08-2017 addressed to Chairman SECP, she appeared before I.O. NAB Lahore on 23rd August 2017 and produced the certified copies of record. The record was seized by the I.O. through a seizure memo which was signed and thumb impressed by her. Her signature and thumb impression thereon are Ex.PW-1/1 (pg: 62). The documents produced by her are:-

i.                    Covering letter dated 18-08-2017 alongwith report of annual audit accounts for the year 2000 – 2005 regarding long term loan. Same is Ex.PW-1/2 (pg 63 and pg 64). Folder No. 1.

ii.                  Certified copies of annual audited accounts of Hudaybia Papers Mills Ltd. for the year ended on 30-06-2000 which are Ex.pW1/3 (pg 65 to pg 72).

iii.                Certified copies of annual audited accounts of Hudaybia Papers Mills Ltd. for the year ended on 30-06-2001 which are Ex.pW1/4 (pg 76 to pg 82).

iv.               Certified copies of annual audited accounts of Hudaybia Papers Mills Ltd. for the year ended on 30-06-2002 which are Ex.pW1/5 (pg 83 to pg 89).

v.                 Certified copies of annual audited accounts of Hudaybia Papers Mills Ltd. for the year ended on 30-06-2003 which are Ex.pW1/6 (pg 90 to pg 96).

vi.               Certified copies of annual audited accounts of Hudaybia Papers Mills Ltd. for the year ended on 30-06-2004 which are Ex.pW1/7 (pg 97 to pg 103).

vii.             Certified copies of annual audited accounts of Hudaybia Papers Mills Ltd. for the year ended on 30-06-2005 which are Ex.pW1/8 (pg 104 to pg 110).

She has brought original record, against said copies of the above mentioned record as furnished by the company for perusal of this court (seen returned). A long term loan was amounting to Rs. 494,960,000. Status of the long term loan remained the same from 30-06-2000 to 30-06-2005. I.O. also recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-2 Muhammad Rasheed S/o Muhammad Maskeen Court Clerk Orr Dignam & Company Mariana Heights, 2nd floor 109, East Jinnah Avenue Blue Area Islamabad deposed that a letter dated 05-09-2017 addressed to Mr. Zaheer Riaz Sr. Partner Orr-Dignam & Co was received from NAB Lahore. Some documents were requisitioned through said letter. He went to NAB office Lahore with documents on 06-09-2017. Mr. Muhammad Imran Dogar I.O. met to him in the NAB Lahore. He handed over the documents wrapped in an envelope. I.O. opened that envelope where in following documents were available.

(i)                A covering letter dated 05-09-2017 which is Exh PW 02/1 (at page 112 Vol-1) (under objection that the witness is neither executant nor scribe of the document).

(ii)              Photocopies of order of Queen’s Bench, comprising on four pages available as pages 113 to 116 the reference which is mark A (as original or certified copies of the same are not with the witness).

(iii)            Photocopies of Affidavit of Mr. Mazhar Raza Khan Bangash available on the reference as pages 117 to 122 which is mark B (not exhibited due to non availability of original or certified copies of the same with the witness).

The above said documents were taken into possession by Muhammad Imran Dogar I.O. through a seizure memo whereon, his signature and thumb impression were obtained in the presence of witnesses. His signature and thumb impression are Exh. PW-02/2. I.O. recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-3 Mr. Mazhar Raza Khan Bangash, Advocate Riia Barker Gillette Advocates R/o H. No. 68, Nazim-ud-Din Road, Sector F-8/4, Islamabad deposed that on 30-08-2017 he appeared before I.O. Imran in NAB Lahore. I.O. showed him photocopies of certain documents which included photocopies of Order of Queen’s bench of 1999. Affidavit of service, and statement of Mr. Shezi Nackvi. The above said affidavit of service was relating to him. He owned the affidavit of service which was photocopy however, it was not original. He was serving in Orr-Dignam & Co. He submitted that affidavit of service to him to his company however, he do not know what further process was adopted by his company employer. The affidavit was prepared by him and photocopies available at pages 117 to 122 (mark B) are evidently the same. The original of the same is lying with the Orr-Dignam & Co. Same may be requisitioned then, he will be in position to confirm that photocopies are of the same. I.O. recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-4 Then Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Sub Inspector Police Station NAB, Lahore deposed that he was entrusted with five call up notices given by Imran Afzal I.O. of the case reference No. 20/2017 and he went to Shamim Farms Raiwind, Jati Umrah Lahore. The call up notices were for accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Capt Safdar, Bibi Maryam, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz. He met with one Ata Ullah who was security officer      of Jati Umrah, who received three call up notices of accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Safdar and Capt Muhammad Safdar while two call up notices of Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif and Hussain Nawaz Sharif were returned to him by saying that they were residing abroad. (Learned defence counsel has raised objection that this portion of statement is hearsay. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion). He return the two call up notices to I.O. I.O. also recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-5 Muhammad Adeel Akhtar, Assistant Director NAB, Lahore deposed that he was marginal witness of seizure memos available at pg 62 and pg 111 and his signature thereon is Ex.PW-5 (pg 62) & Ex.PW-5/2 (pg 111).

He further stated that on 23rd August, 2017, joined the investigation, Muhammad Imran was Investigation Officer in a case against Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Sidra Mansoor Joint Registrar of the company appeared and provided certified copies regarding audit account of Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. The seizure memo available at pg 62  was prepared in his presence and it was signed by said Sidra Mansoor and I.O. He also signed the same. The record produced, was comprising of 48 pages. His statement was recorded on 23-08-2017.

On 06th September, 2017 Muhammad Rasheed Court Clerk of Orr Dignam produced the record before I.O. Muhammad Imran. The record included affidavit High Court Order of Justice Queen’s Bench and a covering letter. I.O. prepared the seizure memo and obtained his signature thereon. That I.O. also obtained signature of Muhammad Rasheed and others. The record of consisting of 11 pages. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 06th September, 2017.

PW-6 Mr. Shakeel Anjum Nagra, Additional Director (Coordination Operations Divisions NAB Head Quarter), Islamabad deposed that on 10.08.2017, an application was written by Additional Director Coordination Prosecution Wing, addressed to Registrar Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan for provision of certified/attested record of JIT (Joint Investigation Team). In that application a request was made in respect of volume I to IX. Another application was written for provision of attested/certified copies of volume- X on 15.08.2017. On 17.08.2017, Assistant Registrar Mr. Muhammad Mujahid, Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan gave three sets of attested copies of volume I to XI of JIT Report and four sets of attested copies of volume X. On the same day i.e. 17.08.2017, he handed over one set of attested copies of volume I to X to NAB Lahore through a covering letter. On 25.08.2017, he appeared before I.O. of NAB Lahore and recorded his statement there.

PW-7  Statement of Zafar Manzoor, Assistant Director NAB Lahore deposed that on 23rd August, 2017 he joined investigation being carried on against accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif before I.O. Muhammad Imran, when Mst. Sidra Mansoor Joint Registrar of Companies appeared and produced covering letter of two pages, 46 pages of annual auditing account of different years. Those documents were seized by the I.O. in the presence and he also signed the seizure memo as its witness. His signature thereon is Ex.PW-7/1 (pg 62 Folder I). I.O. also recorded his statement.

PW-8 Mr. Umar Draz s/o Chulam Rasool caste Gondal presently posted as Sub Inspector Police Station NAB Lahore deposed that on 16.08.2017 he went to House No. 179-H Model Town Lahore, which is residence of Tariq Shafi with purpose to serve call up notices, where he met with one Abdul Latif Security Guard and he inquired from him about the Tariq Shafi. Security Guard told him that the said Tariq Shafi alongwith his family had gone abroad since 20.07.2017. Security Guard Latif refused to receive the call up notices hence, he brought call up notices without any service.

On same day i.e. 16.08.2017, he went to House No. 7-H Gulberg III, Lahore which was residence of one Musa Ghani where Amir Head Constable met to him. He asked HC about the Musa Ghani, he told him that he had been deputed there since 2013 as Incharge Police Guard. The person of name Musa Ghani had not been residing therein and that the above said resident was belonging to Muhammad Ishaq Dar Federal Minister, and said Muhammad Ishaq Dar had been residing in Islamabad. (Learned defence counsel objected to it that this portion is hearsay and not admissible in evidence (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. on the same day.

On 06.09.2017, he appeared before I.O. namely Muhammad Imran Dogar investigation against accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, when Muhammad Rasheed Clerk Orr Dignam appeared and he produced documents including covering letter comprising on 01 page order of Queen’s Bench Comprising on 04 pages and affidavit of Mr. Mazhar Raza Khan Bangesh comprising on 06 pages. These documents were taken into possession vide a seizure memo, which was signed by him as a witness. His signature thereon is Ex.PW-7/2 (pg 111). His statement was recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-9 Then Mr. Muhammad Abdul Wahid  Khan, Director General, Directorate of Electronic Media & Publishers, Islamabad Benevolent Fund Building, Zero Point, Islamabad deposed on 05.01.2018, two officers of the NAB come to him namely Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Nazeer Sultan. They came with all things which were already sent to them in response to their letters. They showed him all the said things which whre:-

i.                    Forwarding letter dated 26.12.2017, through which CD of interview of Hassan Nawaz in shape of CD received from Express News, which is Ex.PW-9/1. ( pg 21, Supplementary reference). (Under objection that the witness is not the scribe nor the executant of said document nor the addressee of the same, so inadmissible in evidence). (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

ii.                  Letter dated 28.12.2017, vide which transcription of CD of interview in program KALTAK, that letter is Ex.PW-9/2 (pg 22), it bears his signature.

iii.                Forwarding letter dated 29.12.2017 vide which CDs and transcripts of program Capital Talk and Lekin in which program interviews of Hussain Nawaz and Maryam Nawaz Sharif were conducted respectively, were sent to NAB Lahore. That letter is Ex.PW-9/3 (pg23).

iv.               Forwarding letter dated 30.12.2017, vide which two CDs containing address to Nation and addressed to National Assembly of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and two transcripts were sent to NAB Lahore, that letter is Ex.PW-9/4 (pg 24).

v.                 Letter dated 28.12.2017, of my Director Asim Khichi which was reminder sent to Geo and PTV for provision of videos clips and transcriptions. That letter is Ex.PW-9/5 (pg 25). (Under objection that the witness is not the scribe nor the excutant of said document nor the addressee of the same, so inadmissible in evidence). (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

vi.               Letter dated 27.12.2017 addressed to External Publicity Wing sent to Mr. Haroon Ur Rasheed Bureau BBC by my Director Muhammad Asim Khichi that letter is Ex.PW-9/6 (pg 261). (Under objection that the witness is not the scribe nor the executant of said document nor the addressee of the same, so inadmissible in evidence). (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

vii.             Transcription of address of Nawaz Sharif to Nation comprising on four pages, which is Ex.PW-9/7) (pg 27 to pg 30).

viii.           Transcription of address of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in National Assembly , which is Ex.PW-9/8 (pg 31 to pg 36). (Under objection that it pertains of address of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in National Assembly therefore inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Article 66 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

ix.                Transcription of interview of Hussain Nawaz Sharif in program Kal Tak in express news comprising on 22 pages, is Ex.PW-9/9 (pg 37 to pg 58). (Under objection that Hussain Nawaz Sharif is neither a witness in this case nor he is accused present before this court in the trial). (Learned prosecutor has contended that Hussain Nawaz Sharif is absconding accused and no objection can be raised by defence counsel). (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

x.                  CD of program Kal Tak mentioned above is Ex.PE-9/10, while CD pertaining to address to Nation is Ex.PW-9/11, and CD of address to the National Assembly is Ex.PW-9/12. (Under objection that this CD is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Article 66 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan). (Learned prosecutor has contended that it was address to nation and no privilege under and article to that document and admissible in evidence. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

All the said material was taken into possession by I.O. Muhammad Imran Deputy Director NAB Lahore, in presence of Muhammad Nazeer Sultan and he signed a seizure memo, his signature thereon is Ex.PW-9/13 (pg 20 Supplementary reference) and I.O. also recorded his statement.

PW-10 Then Syed Mubashar Taquir Shah, Director External Publicity Wings information & Broadcasting Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, National History & Literary Heritage, Benevolent Fund, Zero Point, Islamabad deposed that on 05.01.2018, he joined the investigation relating to Avenfield Investigation officer came to his office at Benevolent Fund, Zero point, Islamabad. He produced:-

i.                    Acknowledgement letter issued by him, issued in the name of I.O. same is Ex.PW-10/1 (pg 60).

ii.                  Letter of the NAB which is Ex.PW-10/2 (pg 61).

(Under objection)

iii.                E-mail sent by Harron Rasheed for copy of interview in hard talk, same is Ex.PP-10/3 (pg 62). (Under objection).

iv.               CD and transcript of interview of Hassan Nawaz with Tim Sebastian in Hard Talk, same is Ex.PW-10/5 (pg 63 to 74).

A seizure memo regarding documents and articles mentioned above was prepared by I.O. and was signed by him. His signature thereon is Ex.PW-10/6 (pg 59 Supplementary reference).

PW-11 Then Mr. Waqas Ahmed, Senior Coordinator, GEO News, Islamabad Office, 40-Jang Building, Fazal-e-Huq Road, Blue Area, Islamabad deposed that on 08.01.2018 a letter was received from NAB wherein provision of information about two programs Capital Talk and Lekin. That on 10.01.2018, he joined the investigation he produced verified transcripts of said programs one DVD and a covering letter to I.O. seizure memo was prepared which was signed by him in presence of witness. His signature on that seizure memo is Ex.PW-11/1 (pg 75). Covering letter is Ex.PW-11/2 (pg 76). Transcript of Capital Talk comprising on 13 pages, which is Ex.PW-11/3 (pg 77 to pg 89), while transcript of program Lekin comprising on two pages is Ex.PW-11/4 (pg 90 and pg 91), while DVD having both the programs is Ex.PW-11/5. I.O. recorded his statement.

PW-12 Mr. Zafar Manzoor, Assistant Director, NAB Lahore. Previously statement in interim reference and after that his was recorded in supplementary reference deposed that on 10.01.2018 he joined the investigation in his presence. Waqas Ahmad Senior coordinator GEO News Islamabad appeared and submitted record. That record was taken into possession through a seizure memo. That seizure memo was signed by him as a witness. His signature thereon is Ex.PW-12/1. (pg 75 Supplementary reference). I.O. recorded his statement on the same date.

PW-13 Mr. Muhammad Sultan Nazir, Deputy Director, NAB Lahore deposed that on 05.01.2018. Abdul Wahid Khan DG Directorate Electronic Media & Publication produced letters, transcript, three CDs. I.O. took into possession those documents as mentioned in seizure memo in his presence. He has seen his signature on that seizure memo, same is correct and is Ex.PW-13/1 (pg 20). I.O. recorded his statement.

Similarly, on same date i.e. 05.01.2018 took into possession record, three letters, transcription comprising on 12 pages and one CD produced by Syed Mubasshar Tauqeer Shah Director External Publicity Wing, vide a seizure memo which was signed by him as a witness. His signature thereon is Ex.PW-13/2 (pg 59). I.O. recorded his statement.

PW-14 Mr. Robert William Radley, Forensic Handwriting Document Examination Expert. Principal of Radley Forensic Laboratory deposed that he has been working in this field since 1976. His services were engaged by Quist Solicitors. Initially he was contacted on 29.06.2017 and his services were effectively engaged on 30.06.2017. he received copies of two Trust declarations from Quist Solicitors on 30.06.2017. He received those copies for the comparison of the documents and also to consider the apparently altered dates under the signature of Mr. Jeremy Freeman. He prepared the report on 4th July 2017 after examination of these documents. He has seen his first original report dated 4th July 2017, copy of which is Ex.PW-14/1 (pg 93 to pg 121). (Witness also recognizes his signature thereon). His finding in respect of said two declarations was …………..

From the comparison of two declarations, second and third page of both the declarations were identified. As a result one set of these pages were seen to be a copy of the other or alternatively they are both copies of further document. In other words they were not separately executed documents but the second and third pages were reproduced in both the declarations. From the copies, he was unable to say, which was not possible to determine, which one the two copies is a true copy of original and which one has the two pages substituted. On the second and third pages, the date against the signature of Solicitor. Last digit of the year was altered. The alteration of page shows that it was 2006 but six appears that the last digit was over written then 4. that can apply for the second and third pages of both the documents.

On 6th July 2017, he also received two sets in his laboratory containing in sealed envelope what he refer to certified declarations. These were certified by Solicitor. Each documents had a cover pages, which certified  the contents as the true and exact copy of the original and that was certified by Michal Lindsley Notary Public. The two documents were the declarations of trust and copy of Nescoll and Neilsen and second declaration was certified Coomber declaration. These documents were bound together with a green corner piece. He has seen these said two certified copies of declarations of trust relating to Nescoll and Neilsen and certified copy of Coomber declaration of trust (the said declaration were shown through video link by zooming). Photocopies of declarations of trust of Nescoll and Neilsen are Ex.PW-14/2 (pg 123 to 127) while photocopies of declaration of trust pertaining to Coomber are Ex.PW-14/3 (pg 128 to pg 131) as he has also annexed these copies with his report. He also prepared his report in that regard on 8th July, 2017. Original report is shown to him, he recognize it as his report, attested copy of which available on reference is Ex.PW-14/4 (pg 137 to pg 147 including other exhibits PW-14/2 and Ex.PW-14/3 as annexure are already exhibited). He also recognize his signature on original report shown to him.

He compare certified copies with a copies previously examined by him and find that certified Nescoll and Neilsen declaration corresponds with the copies previously examined, however, with respect to certified copy to Coomber declaration, the certified copies contain as supposed to 03 copies of the pages, and the second copy of the certified declaration of Coomber is obviously different from signature page on the certified declaration is a different page to that which appears in the copy Coomber declaration previously presented. Both of the certified copies were bound together with a green corner piece through which brass eyelets had been appended. These are illustrated from colour photographs in his report. Comments on binding of the pages 4, 5 & 6. The eyelet has been effectively undone, which damaged the eyelet and some portions of which was broken off. There is evident on reverse of both the documents that the eyelets were initially binding properly and were splayed out as shown on the illustration at pg 04 of his report. There is also evident on reverse where some form of tools was used to lever up the splayed end of the eyelet. Both the documents currently containing a staple as illustrated in pg 4 & 5. they can also be seen on both of these documents, it have been driven through the corner of these documents and then having been removed. There are two staples holes in declaration of Coomber and four sets stamples holes in the Nescoll and Neilsen declaration. He pointed out at paragraph No. 24 & 25 of his report (pg 06 of the report), he pointed out vacant staple holes because as forensic examiner he was not allowed to interfere with the documents of potential. He did not remove the bindings, not even the corners. He potentially issued could be whether or not the documents sandwiched by the corner also bears the staples holes. That could be relevant (and obviously if the court wishes, they can unbind the documents). It seems that the corner piece has been undone on each document and there is clearly the eyelet has been removed and documents have bee substituted on page 05 & 06 of his report.

He made general examination of the document presented. He looked to say copies of the original in this case, they are colour copies of good qualities. He also considered the general lay out of the documents and the type font of the documents. The general appearance of the documents typing is amateur and type font is considered and identified what is known as Calibri. This type font is developed primarily for the VISTA Windows program. This was not commercially available until the 31.01.2007. Infact the VISTA use this font as its default. In other words one if uses VISTA machine the computer would automatically use Calibri unless the Font is actually changed. He summarized his opinion as such that the documents in question commercially have to be prepared after 31st July 2007. After completion of the second reports copies of those were returned alongwith the questioned documents to the representative who attended the office on 9th July 2017. Two gentlemen, who he assumed, where responsible for bringing the documents and one gentlemen from Quist Solicitors. Two copies of first report and second report alongwith the question documents were sealed in envelopes and handed over the report to these gentlemen. His statement was recorded on 15the December 2017.

PW-15 Mr. Akhtar Riaz Raja Solicitor, Quist Solicitor, London England Principal Quist Solicitors at 12th floor the broadgate Primrose Street London EC2A, 2EW UK deposed that he was Solicitor. The law firm Quist Solicitors was established in 1994. He was engaged by JIT on 12th May 2017. He was engaged by JIT to provide professional legal services in relation with the Supreme Court proceedings the various petitions brought by various parties against Former Prime Minister and his family. After he was engaged, he received copies of Bundles of papers submitted in the Supreme Court proceedings in order to carry out my instructions when he received the papers he discovered a letter dated 05.01.2017 from an English Firm of Solicitor Freemen Box. That letter was written by a Solicitor called Jeremy Freeman. MR. Freeman referred to two trust declaration documents the first trust declaration related to two companies namely Nescoll and Nielsen and second trust declaration related to a company called Coomber Group Inc. Mr. Freeman stated that Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif attended his offices bearing those declarations and that he signed them and they were witnessed by Mr. Freeman on 04.02.2006. (At this stage learned defence counsel raised an objection that this portion is hearsay as Mr. Freeman is not witness in this case. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion). He confirmed the letter that shown to him is the same letter. Photocopy of which is Ex.PW-15/1 (pg 106 of CMA 4321. (Attested copy is also shown which is placed on file, exhibited under objection that attested copy is in fact is not the copy of original and it is also not certified lying with article 87 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion. He also found copies of both the declarations in bundles of papers. He looked at the documents carefully and also at the same time JIT were inspecting the documents too. We discovered that there were numerous irregularities. These documents appeared to be forgery. (Learned Counsel has raised the objection that his opinion is not admissible in evidence). The forgery and irregularities in the documents were so many that they appeared to be a Frankenstein version. Having discovered these Frankenstein forgeries, the JIT instructed him to proceed and appoint and search for an expert. These forgeries were apparent to the lay eye and they deserved expert examination also. With regard to the first declaration, on behalf of JIT he wrote to Mr. Jeremy Freeman of Freeman Box on 27th June 2017. Copy of his that letter which is shown to him today through video link is actually copy of his letter but his letter had the letter of Jeremy Freeman attached to it, and also the two declarations of trust were attached to the same. (First annexure was 05th January 2017 letter which is already exhibited as Ex.PW-15/1. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion. The documents at pg 106 to 111 seems to be appeared as the copies of the same as he annexed the same with his letter. The letter Ex.PW-15/1 was sent through e-mail. He did not receive a reply and he sent a chaser on the very next day by hand. His chaser has a full copy of email letter dated 27.06.2017. on the next day i.e. 29.06.2017 he received an email reply from Jeremy Freeman from Freeman Box. In that letter Mr. Freeman stated that Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif attended his office with the original documents at that those documents the trust declaration were the same as the one attached to his one 27.06.2017 letter. As copy of which is at pg 89 of Volume 4, which is Ex.PW-15/2. in that letter Mr. Jeremy Freeman confirmed the signature of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Waqar as witnessed the signature. He also confirmed that contents of letter 05.01.2017 were correct. Around that time 29.06.2017 he also upon the authorization and direction of JIT approached the expert Mr. Robert Radley. He had recommended Mr. Radely to JIT. He began making inquiries as to his suitability to act as witness as an expert. Those communication continued into the next date i.e. 30.06.2017. He provided Mr. Radley with the copies of two trust declarations the Nielsen and Nescoll declaration and Coomber Declaration. He also having confirmed his instruction from JIT he provided Mr. Radley with his instructions and those instructions are confirmed in his first report dated 04.07.2017. He provided a copy of report dated 04.07.2017 to JIT. On 05.07.2017 he was informed by JIT that they are sending further version of two declarations. Those further versions arrived in London on 06.07.2017. They were delivered from Heathrow Airport to Mr. Radley’s Laboratory. Following further examination of those documents Mr. Radley produced report 08.07.2017. The two reports two original copies signed by Mr. Radley were sealed in his lab and taken back are delivered in Pakistan. He was present in the Lab when the two reports and the second sets of declarations were sealed and sent back. He prepared some commentary on litigation commenced by a company Al Toufiq. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion). He produced the same commentary at the instructions of JIT. He has seen pages 227 to 235 and those seem to be the copies of the same commentary, which is Mark PW-15/A. His commentary refers to further documents. It refers to a judgment made in March 1999 agianst the defendants Hudaybia. Mr. Shahbaz Sharif, and two other gentlemen from Sharif Family. The March Judgment which is for over 20 million Dollars was subsequently the subject of a charging order Nisi make on 05.11.1999, the photocopies of which are available at pg 201 to 226 Volume 4 of the reference, which are Mark PW-15/B. On page 186 to pg 188, of the same volume copy of order is available which is included in already Mark PW-15/B. At pg 205 to pg 211 is a copy of draft prepared by a lawyer and photocopies of draft consent order at pg 189 to pg 191 can be seen. His commentary in it refers to articles published in Dawn at pg 236 to pg 240 and it is inherent part of his commentary and cannot be divorced from his commentary.

He was not a part of NAB Investigation. Mr. Imran recorded his statement.

PW-16 Mr. Wajid Zia acting Add. Director General of Immigration FIA on 20th April, 2017, deposed that the Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan issued an order of the court whereby a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), was announced, he was to he headed by a Senior Officer of Federal Investigation Agency not below the rank of Addl. Director General who shall head the JIT team having the first hand experience of white collar crime. The other members were to be drawn from National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), State Bank of Pakistan, ISI, and Military Intelligence (MI). The heads of the organization were to submit the names of their representatives. His name was in a panel of three officers which was sent to Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan for final selection. The court order also illuminated the questions that were to be addressed by the JIT which were:-

How did Gulf Steel Mills came into being?

What led to its sale?

What happened to its liability?

Where did its sale proceed end up?

How did they reach Jaddah, Qattar and UK?

Whether respondent No. 7 and 08 (Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz, respectively). In view of their tender ages had the means in the earlier nineteen’s to possess and purchase the flats?

Whether sudden appearance of the letter of Hammad Bin Jasim Bin Jabbir Athani S.A is a Myth or reality?

How their shares crystallized into the flats?

Who in-fact is the real and beneficial owner of Ms Nielsen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd and Nescoll Ltd?

How did hill Metals Establishment come into existence?

How did the money for Flagship Investment Ltd and other companies setup taken over by respondent No. 8 (Mr. Hassan Nawaz) come from and where did the working capital for such companies come from and where do the huge sums running into Millions gifted by respondent No. 7 (Mr. Hussain Nawaz) to Respondent No. 1 (Mr. Nawaz Sharif), which go to the heart of the matter and need to be answered?

The court order continues to state in para 3, the JIT shall investigate the case and collect evidence, if any, showing that Respondent No. 1 Mr. Nawaz Sharif or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses or has acquired assets or any interest therein disproportionate to his known means of income. Another relevant directions of the court in the same para is that the JIT may also examine the evidence and material, if any already available with NAB and FIA relating in or having any nexus with the possession or acquisition of the aforesaid flats (Avenfield Plats No. 16, 16-A, 17 & 17-A, or any other assets or pecuniary resources and their origin. The JIT was to complete its work within 60 days.

He produced certified copy of that order of the court, which is Ex.PW-16-1. (Under objection on behalf of the accused that this order is not available on the record of the court, nor its copy has been supplied to the accused in terms of section 265-C Cr.P.C).

The Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan in its order dated 5th May, 2017, setup the composition of the JIT, and the composition was Mr. Amir Azia who is an officer of BS-21 from SBP, Mr. Bilal Rasool from SECP, he is the Executive Director in SECP, Mr. Irfan Naeem Mangi Director BS-20 from NAB, Brig Noman Saeed from ISI, Brig. Kamran Khursheed from MI, and himself Wajid Zia to head the JIT. The court further directed and enumerated the different powers that were given to the JIT for its functioning, in para 3(i) to para 3 (ix), he produced certified copy of order dated 05.05.2017 which is Ex.PW-16/2. (Under objection on behalf of the accused that this order is not available on the record of the court, nor its copy has been supplied to the accused in terms of section 265-C in this regard).

The JIT commenced its working on 8th May, 2017 and submitted its final report consisting of ten volumes but two volumes having two parts i.e. volume 8 and Volume 9 of JIT Report. The JIT collected all the documents that were filed by the petitioners of Constitution Petition 29 and others, concise statements and documents filed by respondents of that petition, the court order itself and analyzed these documents. JIT then also started collecting material from different institutions like SECP, Banks, FIA, NAB and many others. The JIT also realized that since many of the documents incidence and assets were located in foreign jurisdiction, therefore the JIT requested and got the notification issued for the powers conferred by section 21 of NAB, that notification is Ex.PW-16/3 (pg 28 interim volume 1). (Original is seen and returned, which authorized himself being head of JIT to exercise the powers conferred under section 21 of NAO. The JIT initiated a numer of MLAs (Mutual Legal Assistance), letters of request to United Kingdom. British Virgin Island (BVI). Gdom of Saudi Arabis, United Arab Emirates and others. JIT also started recording the witness statements of persons who were acquainted with the facts of the case including Mr. Nawaz Sharif, Mr. Shahaz Sharif, Mr. Tariq Shafi, Mr. Hussain Nawaz, Mr. Hassan Nawaz, Ms Maryam Safdar, Capt Retd Safdar, among others. The Volume II of the JIT Report has statements of the witnesses analysis. The whole file of the witness statements, the material that was produced by the witnesses etc. were also placed in separate folders and submitted to the Registrar, Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan. He has brought those sets folders No. Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 9-A and 10 from Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan as directed by this court. The JIT after going through the constitutional petition 29 and the CMAs found that the questions relating to Avenfield Apartment which were raised by Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan were related to the Avenfield Apartments 17, 17-A, 16, & 16-A and the whole case has been defended by the respondents now accused in this case through different CMAs. The most important ones that provided the explanation to the possession and acquisition of these apartments were contained in CMA 7531 dated 15.11.2017 which contains supplementary concise statements on behalf of Respondents No. 6, 7, 8, now accused Maryam Safdar, Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Hassan Nawaz Sharif respectively. In the above said CMA it was explained that a Steel Factory by the name of Gulf Steel was established by late Mr. Muhammad Sharif the father of accused Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in 1974. That the said Steel Mill was run by Mr. Tariq Shafi as its owner whereas the real owner was Mr. Muhammad Shafi. That 75% of shares of Gulf Steel Mills were sold for a consideration of 21 million Abu Dhebi Dhiram (AED), which were paid directly to BCCI for settlement of the loan liability and another agreement was signed with the purchaser Mr. Abdullah Ahli who became a partner of 75% whereas Mr. Tariq Shafi became the partner of 25% of the shares in Ahli Steel Mills (previous name Gulf Steel Mills). In 1980 Mr. Tariq Shafi on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Shafi sold 25% shares that he own to Mr. Ahli for a consideration of 12 million AED which were invested with the Qattery Royal Family. The Qattery Royal Family had purchased the above said Apartments in question through companies Neilsen and Nescoll and the sons of accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif started living in those apartments paying the ground rent and services charges. That in the year 2006 a settlement between Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif and the Qattery Royal (Prince Hammad Bin Jasim Althani) resulted in the change of the ownership of the flats in question through handing over the bearer shares to Mr. Hussain Nawaz accused, who has since then been the beneficial owner of these apartments in question. That accused Maryam Safdar became a trustee for Mr. Hussain beneficiary in pursuance of a trust deed that was signed in 2006. They were a number of documents that were also submitted with the CMA. CMA 432 basically elaborated on the money trail that already had been provided in the previous noted CMA and more documents relating to the sale of Gulf Steel, the investment with the Qattery Family and the transfer of ownership through the handing over bearer shares were provided and explanations of the gaps in the money trail were provided. This CMA was filed by Respondent 7 & 8 Hussain and Hassan Nawaz on 26.01.2017. (under objection that that this portion is hearsay). CMA No. 7531 is available at pages 1 to 7. (Volume CMA-7531/2016), which is Ex.PW-16/4. (Certified copy is seen and returned). (Under objection that the witness cannot prove the contents of this CMA he no the scribe, witness or executants of the document. Learned prosecutor has contended that objection is not entertainable under article 85 (3) read with article 88 of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The witness and read and examined the documents. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion). He also produced attested copy of an Affidavit of Mr. Tariq Shafi dated 12.11.2016 annexed with the above said CMA, photocopy of which is available at page 59 to pg 62 of Volume CMA No. 7531, and is Ex.PW-16/5. (attested copies returned). (Under objection that the witness is not executant, scribe and subscriber of the document and the deponent is not cited as witness in the case). Learned prosecutor has contended that objection is not entertainable under article 185 (3) read with article 88 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The witness has read and examined the documents. (Order lateron). The other document affidavit of Tariq Shafi is also annexed as annexure B of concise statement CMA-432, photocopies of which are available on page 20 to pg 21 ( Volume CMA-132), which is Ex.PW-16/6. Attested copy is return). Under objection that the witness is not executant, scribe and subscriber of the document and the deponent is not cited as witness in the case). Learned prosecutor has contended that objection is not entertainable under artice 85 (3) read with article 88 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The witness has read and examined the documents. (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).In these affidavits, the setting of a Gulf Steel, its sale in 1978 and 1980 sale of Ahli Steel in 1980 and the handing over of the 12 million AEDs to the Qatari. (Under objection of hearsay). The JIT has analyzed in depth both the affidavits in its report from pg 05 to pg 21 Volume 3 Gulf Steel Mills and found contradictions and anomalies in them, and such contradictions and anomalies were also found when Tariq Shafi was examined before JIT, (Under objection that it is opinion of the witness inadmissible in evidence. Deponent is not witness in the case). The Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan have asked specifically the JIT in one of the question that how Gulf Steel was set up. The answer to the question appears in para 7 of the affidavit Ex.PW-16/8. It was setup with zero equity and 100% loan while para 3 of the said affidavit clearly stated that where as another partner Muhammad Hussain who lived in UK British National and was never a part of Gulf Steel Mills actively. Mr. Tariq Shafi and other witnesses had failed to explain that there was no activity involved and he was not a working partner then, what was his role in setting of Gulf Steel Mills. Mr. Tariq Shafi as well as the other witnesses i.e. Mr. Hussain was asked by the JIT to provide any corroborative documents like Articles of Memorandum of Association. Bank Loan Documents to substantiate their position but no such record was provided. He produced attested copy of shares sale contract, photocopies of which are at pg 20 to pg 39 Volume

CMA 7531/2016 and is Ex.PW-16/7 wherein there were three parties Muhammad Shafi. Ahli and BCCI. All the proceeds of 21 million AED were to go to BCCI. The company has a total of 36 million of AED approximately and after payment to BCCI still about 14 million of liabilities were outstanding against Gulf Steel Mill. These liabilities were the responsibility of Mr. Tariq Shafi who was running this under the real ownership of Mr. Muhammad Sharif. These included another about 06 million AED owed to BCCI while the remaining two utility companies like Water and Electricity Charges. A partnership agreement of year 1978 between Mr. Tariq Shafi and Mr. Abdullah Ahli was signed, which provided for 25% shares of Mr. Tariq Shafi and remaining 75% Mr. Ahli. Photocopies of which are available at page 40 to pg 51 of Volume CMA 7531/2016, same is Ex.PW18/8. Another agreement dated 14th April, 1980 placed at pg 52 to pg 55 of Volume CMA No. 7531/2016 was signed purportedly between parties Mr. Tariq Shafi, represented by his authorized representative Mr. Shahbaz Sharif Mr. Muhammad Abdullah Ahli, same is Ex.PW-16/9. The signature block of this agreement states Tariq Shafi by his authorized representative Mr. Shahbaz Sharif whereas the signatures on the signature block read for Tariq Shafi. When confronted with this anomaly both Mr. Tariq Shafi and Mr. Shahbaz Sharif denied that they had signed this document. The agreement dated 14.4.1980 which contains clauses specifically referred to bank guarantee to be provided by Mr. Abdul Rehman Ahli. These guarantees in banking terms are only discharged once payment had been received by Mr. Tariq Shafi. He has collected Constitution petition No. 29/2016 already Ex.16/4.

1.     CMA No. 432 already exhibited as Ex.PW-16/6.

2.     Share sale contract already exhibited Ex.PW-16/7.

3.     Photocopies letter of credit as annexure E. available at pg-36 to pg-39 CMA no. 432/2017 which is Ex.PW-16/10.(under objection that this not a certified copy of the original witness is not a scribe, and executants not witness of this document) (learned prosecutor contended that this is public document and is admissible under article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat). (Overruled, reasoning is given herein discussion).

4.     Photocopy of letter of Hamad Bin Jasim Bin Jabir Al-Sani is submitted in CMA No. 7638/2016 (attested copy is seen and returned). Attested copy of which is also available at page 25 volume, same is Ex.PW-16/11.

5.     Letter dated 22.12.2016 written by Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Bin Jabir Al-Thani same is Ex.PW-16/12 (pg.22 CMA 432/2016).






21.            --------------------------




---PAGE 24 completed, Line No. 00---


Prosecution in the circumstances of the case and evidence produced has established that Avenfield Apartments were not purchased from sources of income shown by the accused in their CMAs.


In the above scenario of the case heavy burden of proof was shifted to the accused within the meaning of section 14 (C) NAO, 1999.

The accused didn’t appear before the NAB despite notice u/s 19 of NAO. Addresses on the notices were of the accused, they must have appeared and produced relevant supporting documents in their favour. Their attendance would have clarified certain ambiguity in their stance. Accused had also not produced a single witness in their evidence. Muhammad Tair Shaif and Hamid Bin Jasim were the witnesses whose documents are being relied upon by the some of the accused.

As discussed above Avenfield Apartments were purchased in the year 1993, 1995 and 1996 through offshore companies. It is alleged that beneficial owner of which is one of the accused while accused Maryam Nawaz is trustee. The document of incorporation, Article of association has not been produced by them to clear facts in this regard.

Notice under section 19 NAO, 1999. The presence reference is filed in continuity of cases which were pending before Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, there was no need to give details of facts in the notice issued u/s 19 of NAO, 1999 by NAB authorities. However, accused did not co-operate with NAB. They submitted replies for postponement of investigation till disposal of their review petition. They were asked in the notices inter alia to produce any additional documents, evidence / record whatsoever in support of their plea defence and they were also requested to attend the office for verification of their statements handed over to JIT and confrontation with the record. Their reply was infact refusal to give information within the meaning of Srl. No. 2 of the Schedule. Those notices are available on file as Ex. PW18/Dx2., Dx3, Dx4, Dx5, DX6 and Dx7 and showing the above said facts.

Prosecution have not bright evidence in respect of 9(a)(iv) NAO, 1999. So the accused are acquitted under the section of law. The accumulative facts of the evidence produced by the prosecution is that accused Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was holder of public office. He has remained Chief Minister of Punjab, Prime Minister of Pakistan (three times) and member of National Assembly of Pakistan.

It was difficult to establish ownership of properties which was purchased through offshore companies formed in tax haven jurisdiction due to veils of secrecy. Certain laws are discussed above were made during years 2003-2004 by BVI Govt. hence bear shares were to be converted into registered shares and the name of owner and other particulars were to be disclosed.

Avenfield Apartments have been purchased during the years 1993, 1995, and 1996 through offshore companies Nielson Enterprises and Nescoll Ltd. Certain documents have been shown that accused Maryam Nawaz has remained beneficial owner of those companies prior to 2006. The year from which handing over bearer shares of two companies Nielson and Nescoll are alleged by accused Maryam Nawaz and his brother co-accused. Two letter and worksheet were produced before Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan but those were found not reality by the JIT. As discussed above those are not good defence of the case in absence of supportive documents or direct evidence. Both the letters are based on hearsay.

The ages of accused Maryam Safdar was 18 years and ages of his brothers (co-accused) were about 20 and 17 years in the years 1993. They have no source of income to purchase those apartments. Analysis charts of assets and liabilities prepared by JIT are showing their sources of income.

Generally children remain dependant on their parents during heir tender ages, therefore, accused No. 1 cannot say that he had not provided any money to them to purchase the apartments.

The Avenfield Apartments had remained in possession of accused as stated in interviews by Hassan Nawaz.

Accused Hassan Nawaz even accused Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Safdar have never stated that the bearer shares of two companies were purchased as a result of investment with Qatri Royal Family in their interview/speech.

The Prince Hamid Bin Jasim had not noted the name of Muhammad Tariq Shafi to be representative of Muhammad Sharif while giving cash amount for investment purposes.

Withholding of relevant documents from the court can be presumed as that submission of documents would be adversed to interest of withholder of the documents.

All the four ingredients of the offence as define u/s 9 (a)(4) NAO 1999 are established therefore, heavy burden was shifted to the accused to account of assets Avenfield Apartments that those are not disproportionate to know sources of their income.

In the above circumstances prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of the accused as below:

The guilt of the accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif u/s 9(a)(v) NAO 1999 read with serial No. 2 of the schedule attached with the said Ordinance punishable u/s 10 of NAO/said Serial No. 2 of schedule. Therefore, he accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is hereby convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of ten years with fine 08 million pounds. He is also convicted and sentenced under offence cited at Serial No. 2 for one years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The trust deeds produced by the accused Maryam Nawaz were also found bogus. She accused Maryam Nawaz was instrumental in concealment of the properties of his father accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. This accused Maryam Nawaz aided, assisted, abetted, attempted and acted in conspiracy with her father accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif who was holder of Public Office. Therefore, prosecution has succeeded to establish her guild within the meaning of Section 9(a)(4) (xii) NAO, 199 read with serial No. 2 of the schedule and punishable u/s 10 and schedule attached therewith. In view of the role of this accused Mst. Maryam Nawaz, she is convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of two million pounds under section u/s 9(a)(4) (xii) NAO, 1999 and simple imprisonment for one year under Serial No. 2 of the schedule. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The accused Muhammad Safdar had signed the trust deeds as witness, he has aided, assisted, abetted, attempted and acted in conspiracy with the accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Safdar within the meaning of Section u/s 9(a)(4) (xii) NAO, 1999 read with section 10 of NAO 1999 and Serial No. 2 of the schedule and he is convicted to rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 9(a)(4) (xii) NAO, 1999 read with section 10 of NAO 1999 and one year under Serial No. 2 of schedule attached with NAO, 1999.

Avenfield Apartments Nos. 16, 16-a, 17, and 17-a stand forfeited to Federal Government within the meaning of 10(a) of NQO, 1999.

The above said accused shall be disqualified to contest election or to hold public office for a period of 10 years to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence and they shall not be allowed to apply for or to be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of loan etc for a period of 10 years from the date of their conviction within the meaning of section 15 of NAO, 1999.

Two accused namely Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz are absconding therefore, they are declared as proclaimed offenders. Non-bailable perpetual warrants of arrest shall be issued against them.


06.07.2018                                                                                                                                                   ( Muhammad Bashir )


                                                                                                Accountability Court-1



It is to certify that this judgment is comprising upon 174 pages. Each page has been singed by me after making necessary corrections therein wherever required.



( Muhammad Bashir )


                                                                                                Accountability Court-1


Go to Index | LL. B. – I | LL. B. – II | LL. B. – III | LL. B. Directory | Home