LAHORE, Feb 12: A division bench of the Lahore High Court on Thursday dismissed in limine a petition seeking registration of a case against former chief justice Nasim Hasan Shah on charges of abetting in the "murder" of former prime minister Z.A. Bhutto.
Comprising Justices Sheikh Abdur Rashid and Bilal Khan, the division bench held that the petition hardly qualified for processing because the judge of a bench could not be proceeded against in a case which had already been decided.
The members of the bench felt that petitioner Mian Mohammad Hanif Tahir of the People's Lawyers Forum was hardly prepared to address legal aspects of the case and questions arising out of the petition. Instead, he was agitating legal points in a political manner.
One member of the bench remarked that in a situation where the judgment of a case was effective for citation as a reference, an ambiguous statement of one of the members of a panel of judges hearing the case, could in no way prejudice the decision after two decades. If such things were allowed to happen, the whole judicial system would collapse, the judge remarked.
PLF leader Hanif Tahir had quoted the former chief justice as saying in two of his press interviews that the Supreme Court judgment in the appeal of the late Bhutto against his death sentence awarded by the LHC, was a wrong decision and it was a fit case for lesser punishment.
The petitioner submitted that Mr Shah was part of the 11-member bench of the Supreme Court which upheld the death penalty. He contended that comments of the former chief justice amounted to a confessional statement and that he had shown no such sentiments while agreeing with the majority opinion of apex court's bench which confirmed the execution of Mr Bhutto.
When the proceedings began, the petitioner requested the court that a larger bench be constituted to hear the case which was of paramount importance. Rejecting the request, the court informed Mr Tahir that petitions seeking registration of FIRs were usually heard by a single bench. It was because of the nature of case that the chief justice had constituted a division bench.
Later, the petitioner requested for time to collect evidence and sought an adjournment. The court refused to do so and directed him to argue his case as he should have gathered evidence before coming to the curt.
The petitioner started with quotes from the interview of Mr Shah. The court asked him if such quotes, taken from a television interview, carried any legal significance. When the petitioner submitted that the text of interview was a "public document", the court asked the lawyer to define the legality of public documents and remarked that points raised in the petition were based on hearsay.
As for petitioner's contention that Mr Shah had made a confessional statement in his interview, the court directed him to examine the relevant law to know what a confessional statement was and if it carried a legal weight if given on a non-judicial or extra-judicial forum. He must also differentiate between a press statement and a legal statement recorded in a court of law.
