LAHORE, April 12: The anti-terrorism court trying Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja on Saturday refused to incorporate in the chargesheet the charges pertaining to their alleged links with Al Qaeda, and indicted them on compound charges of assault on police with illegal weapons.

The prosecution failed to produce the incriminating material about Khwajas’ alleged links with Al Qaeda activists, in accordance with court instructions issued on the last hearing.

The court did not frame the charges to this (Al Qaeda) effect against the accused and included other charges in the chargesheet as levelled in the FIR registered with the Manawaan Police in December.

The court indicted both Khwajas under Section 7-b (acts aimed at causing death to a person) and Section 7-h (indiscriminate firing) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 (keeping illegal weapons) and Section 6(1)(g) of the Passport Act 1974 (possessing illegal passports).

The charge of possessing illegal passports was incorporated by the court in the chargesheet when the prosecution furnished four passports of foreign nationals on suspicion that those belonged to the Al Qaeda activists who had stayed at the residence of the accused.

In its supplementary chargesheet submitted earlier to the court, the prosecution had levelled charges under Section 11(v) of the ATA against the accused of harbouring Al Qaeda activists at their residence in Manawaan area.

Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charges on which the court summoned the entire prosecution evidence for April 19. The prosecution evidence comprises the statements of 10 police officials who are scheduled to testify against the accused on the next hearing.

Prior to framing the charges, Judge Mahmood Maqbool Bajwa took oath in the open court under Section 16 of the ATA 1997 on the Holy Quran that he shall decide the case honestly and faithfully after considering himself accountable before Allah.

Earlier, the court inquired of the prosecutor, Rana Bakhtiar, whether he was in a position to produce the incriminating material in the retiring room. He answered in negative, saying the material had not yet been provided to him by the authorities concerned.

On the last hearing, the prosecutor had claimed privilege about the incriminating material on the grounds that it was too sensitive in nature to be produced in the open court. The judge had asked the prosecution to produce it in his retiring room.