What a Buuullll Sshhhiiiittttt 
Nevertheless, one can expect anything from crook NS and his cronies full of liars (one such person must be reporter of this article in timesonline). Anyhow, if Altaf was convicted and sentence in absentia than that conviction and sentence, both according to Pakistani constitution is illegal.
It seems that the writer of the article does not even know that according to Pakistani laws, conviction and sentence in absentia is illegal and invalid. You do not believe me, do you?
So read this: Act XV of 1987 by Zia-ul-Haq permitted trial of the accused person in absentia for speedy justice … this act was challenged and …
Lahore high court gave verdict that: Trial of a person in absentia violates Article 10 of the constitution and thus this act itself is illegal**.**
www.ljcp.gov.pk/Menu%20Items/Publications/Reports%20of%20the%20LJCP/reports/rep%2053.doc
The Lahore High Court in its judgment dated 30-9-1989 [3]: while considering the question of holding of a trial in the absence of the accused under the provisions of the Special Court for Speedy Trial Act (XV) of 1987 observed that the provisions of the said Act in so far as they permit the trial of the accused person in absentia are violative of Article 10 of the Constitution. From the above view of the High Court, it is clear that the conviction of the accused in absentia is illegal.
[3]: PLD 1989 Lahore-554 (Ziaullah Khan and others Vs Government of Punjab).]
Further: NAB gave verdict against a person in absentia:
Supreme Court verdict came against such verdict: Trial in absentia violated Article 9 of the Constitution, so such trial is illegal.
[http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-10-2004_pg7_15
PPP hails SC verdict scrapping sentencing in absentia
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) on Monday praised the verdict of the Supreme Court (SC) last week declaring that a trial in absentia violated Article 9 of the Constitution as being a ‘landmark’ event.
In a petition filed by Gul Zaman Kasi, former Balochistan minister, against his conviction in absentia by a court in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) case, the SC ruled that the sentence violated Article 9 of the Constitution and the court’s previous judgement in the Mahram Ali case. …]