Sarfraz Shah case: Lawyer argues in favour of JIT report

SHC appellate bench hears criminal revision application.


Zeeshan Mujahid July 07, 2011

KARACHI:


A court has asked the Prosecutor General of Sindh to appear on August 11 for the hearing of a criminal revision application filed by one of the men accused of killing Sarfraz Shah.


Initially expressing difficulty in hearing the criminal revision application filed by one accused official of the Abdullah Shah Ghazi Rangers, in view of the Supreme Court order, the appellate bench of the Sindh High Court put the prosecutor general and complainant on notice for August. The bench consists of Justices Irfan Saadat Khan and Muhammad Tasnim.

The applicant's lawyer, Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi, sought a notice to the respondents and a direction to the investigation officer DIG Sultan A Khawaja to appear before the court along with a report of the joint investigating team (JIT) into the killing.

The counsel submitted that it was classic case of police high-handedness. He said that the Supreme Court doubted that an independent investigation could be held with the then IG Fayyaz Leghari and the then DG Rangers at their respective posts and thus DIG Khawaja was designated to probe the matter.

Referring to the finding of the apex court, Rizvi said that it held that "prima facie" section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 is attracted. Reading from the order, he pointed out that the SC has ruled that the IO would submit the report before "a court of competent" jurisdiction.

But instead of taking cognisance of the DIG's report, the court went with the charge sheet he submitted which makes proceeding with the trial on a day to day basis illegal.

No, you are painting a wrong picture, the bench said, adding that the Sindh High Court cannot interpret the SC order. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, the senior member of the bench, drew the lawyer's attention towards a landmark judgment by Justice Khalil-ur Rahman Ramday of the Supreme Court regarding Section 6 of the ATA. Anything or act which creates uncertainty or chaos in society is declared terrorism in this case law, the judge said.

This led to a detailed argument by Rizvi on how sections 6 and 7 of the ATA developed over the years.

Judging the mood of the bench, the crafty lawyer conceded that the killing of Safraz Shah was an act of brutality that left thousands of people saddened and shocked. "I am only seeking a notice at this moment," he hurriedly said while appreciating the SC's orders. A notice would mean that the case could come to a halt at the anti-terrorism court.

He said the apex court did the right thing but that alleged illegalities were committed when a faulty charge sheet was submitted instead of the JIT report and thus the proceedings which followed are also wrong and illegal with the mala fide act of suppressing the JIT report.

The bench ordered notices to be issued to the prosecutor general as well as Salik Shah, Sarfraz's elder brother.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 8th, 2011.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ