Mohammad Jamil
The Accountability Court Islamabad on Thursday resumed its hearing on supplementary references filed by NAB in Al Azizia and Flagship references against Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Safdar. The proceedings were conducted by Judge Muhammad Bashir; former Panama JIT Head Wajid Zia appeared before the court to testify in the case. UK-based star witness Robert Radley recorded his statement in the accountability court in Nawaz Sharif Family corruption case on Thursday evening through video link. According to the details, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) presented a key witness forensic expert Robert Radley, who claimed that the font used in trust deeds of two companies was Calibri, which was not commercially available before Jan 31, 2007. On questioning, he however told the court that the Calibri font was available in 2005, albeit on a limited scale to IT experts and developers only for testing.
Robert Radley confirmed during his testimony before the court that the dates were changed on the pages two and three of both the declarations, and that both pages seemed similar whereby it is hard to tell the fake from the original. He explained that year 2004 was changed into 2006 in the documents; adding that the documents had four stapler holes instead of two, adding that it seemed that to change the documents the corner piece was opened. During forensic examination of the trust deed, the staple pins attached with the paper were relatively new and were identified not to be as old as of 2005 or 2006. It meant that forgery had taken place. A legal firm responsible for preparation of such an important document as trust deed would never have prepared it on a trial version.
Of course, it could have easily been challenged later in the court of law being prepared on trial prototype software, which was officially and commercially launched in January 2007. Referring to the Calibri font, Khawaja Haris asked if thousands of people could have had access to the font in its pre-release version. The witness said that it would not be correct to say, as testing was being conducted on a limited scale. Anyhow, issue of Calibri font besides, it appeared that the documents or trust deeds were fake, and in addition were forged. The matter had come up earlier during proceedings of 5-member bench of the Supreme Court on 20th July 2017. When the court observed that prima facie case before them was forgery. The court had observed that the documents submitted by the Sharif family in defence of their ownership of London flats make a prima facie case of forgery.
Justice Azmat Saeed had remarked: “The documents provided by the respondents are found to be fake, and case before us right now is of forgery but we shall not go beyond this.” The counsel of Prime Minister’s children, Salman Akram Raja had presented more proofs regarding the ownership of London flats. When the hearing resumed, Hussain Nawaz’s lawyer had presented new documents showing his client owned the Avenfield flats before the three-member bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan. The bench inquired that how come the “Trust Deed” between Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz was signed on 4th February 2006 (Saturday), which is not possible being holiday in UK. “No one even receive a call on holiday, how it is possible,” Justice Azmat asked, on this Raja replied that might be a mistake. Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked “if you are able to prove the source of funds your clients and the public office holder will be in safe zone.”
Forgery has a long history, but it became more common in the 20th century as technology has made it easier for criminals to commit the act. Some cases throughout history have been so remarkable that the forged pieces are in display in popular museums around the world. However, at the same time inventions have also made it possible to uncover the criminal acts of forgery through forensic examination. A crime that involves making to altering writing with the attempt to defraud another person or entity; the production of fake art or others works that a person claims are genuine fabricating, and the act of devising, fabricating, or counterfeiting a document or other object, all fall under the definition of forgery. In order for the judicial system to charge a person with forgery, certain elements or factor must be in place. If one or more of the elements is missing, it can result in different charges.
This includes changing or adding the signature on a document, but also includes deleting it. Using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery, though some states consider it “uttering a false writing.” Not every altered document or letter falls within the bounds of forgery. In order an altered document to be subject to forgery laws, the false writing must have legal significance. In the case under reference, it appears to be a false document whereby the date had also been altered. Anyhow, altering existing documents is also forgery if it is done in an attempt to gain or deceive another person or state.
