LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday sought a written explanation from Anti-Corruption Punjab (ACE) Director General (DG) Sohail Zafar Chattha for failing to appear in a case regarding the sealing of Rs110 million worth of sugar stock at a mill.

Justice Ali Zia Bajwa was hearing a petition filed by Rahim Yar Khan Sugar Mill’s representative Farrukh Naseem Akhtar Naik.

The judge had previously instructed the ACE DG to appear in person.

However, during the hearing, Additional Prosecutor General Abdul Samad informed the court that Mr Chattha was unable to appear due to illness.

The judge directed the prosecutor that the reason for the DG absence should be submitted in writing.

The prosecutor argued that the petition was not maintainable, as the case challan had already been submitted to the trial court and the petitioner should approach that forum.

The judge remarked, “How can you raid a sugar mill to recover a motorcycle and end up sealing property worth millions?”

Petitioner’s counsel Amir Saeed Rawn argued that the ACE had no authority to seize or sell sugar.

He alleged that the ACE sealed sugar stock worth Rs110 million following an alleged Rs5 million corruption inquiry against Muhammad Khan Bhatti, a former principal secretary to chief minister.

Murad Raas: The Lahore High Court was told on Wednesday that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had dropped an inquiry of prohibited funding against former provincial minister Murad Raas.

A two-member bench headed by Justice Farooq Haider heard an appeal of the former minister, challenging the FIA inquiry and expressing fears of his arrest over allegations of prohibited funding.

The appeal argued that the FIA initiated the inquiry on political grounds and that the appellant had no connection to the alleged charges. It also requested the court to restrain vindictive action under the guise of a prohibited funding case.

An additional advocate general told the bench that the inquiry against the appellant had been dropped, and his arrest was no longer required to the FIA.

At this, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the appeal.

The bench accepted the request and disposed of the appeal.

Published in Dawn, March 27th, 2025