Visit Indian Travel Sites
Goa,
Kerala,
Tamil Nadu,
Andhra Pradesh,
Delhi,
Rajasthan,
Uttar Pradesh,
Himachal Pradesh,
Assam,
Sikkim,
Madhya Pradesh,
Jammu & Kashmir
Karnataka
|
Pak CJ's son denies any ties with tycoon Malik Riaz, his family | Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry's son, Arsalan Iftikhar, has strongly rejected his relationship, intimacy or acquaintance with property tycoon Malik Riaz, his daughter or son-in-law. "I have never met with
any one of them in relation to any business deal, or for any other purpose in
Pakistan , or outside Pakistan . Therefore, baseless, frivolous and unfounded
allegations have been levelled to spread in electronic and print media in absence
of any cogent and logical evidence acceptable under the law of evidence. So, the
said allegations are strongly denied," the Daily Times quoted from a statement
by Arsalan in a suo motu case regarding a business deal with Riaz. In the five-page
reply, Arsalan said Riaz was liable to be dealt strictly in accordance with law
and he should be imprisoned for dragging him to court and also maligning the judiciary.
"If he had made investments, allegedly for favouring me to achieve illegal motives,
he owes an explanation to the court, and considering the golden principles of
jurisprudence, the person who has committed a wrong is not legally entitled to
claim benefits of the same, rather on account of admission of such wrongs. He
deserves to be punished severely," he further wrote. Arsalan also said, "Statements
of anchors brought on court record are nothing but hearsay." "No finding can be
based according to the rule of evidence of the alleged material. Therefore, same
may be discarded straight away being inadmissible having absolutely no value,
as same is entirely based upon surmises and conjectures, above all it is the result
of memories, which otherwise have no legal sanctions or sanctity attached for
reading the same as evidence in the court," he added. Arsalan said that he would
furnish a comprehensive reply if any cogent legal and admissible incriminating
evidence were brought before the court against him.
|
|
|
|
|
|