02 October 2004	Saturday	16 Shaban 1425

LAHORE, Oct 1: Another Ehtesab appellate bench on Friday declined to hear the appeal of National Assembly's former deputy speaker Haji Nawaz Khokhar against his conviction by an accountability court.

Justice Mohammad Bilal Khan, a member of the bench along with Justice Sheikh Abdur Rashid, expressed his inability to hear the appeal saying he was the counsel of the petitioner in a case.

Mr Khokhar's counsel Manzoor Ahmad Malik submitted that he had no objection to the learned judge sitting on the bench because he was not the appellant's defence counsel in this particular case.

Later, the appeal was referred to the chief justice for the constitution of a new appellate bench to hear the plea. This is the third time since July that similar situations have taken place.

In the first instance Justice Sayeed Akhtar declined to sit on the bench "on personal grounds" along with Justice Tasaddaq Husain Jilani on July 15. Later, Justice Muzammil also declined to hear the appeal in a bench with Justice Sheikh Abdur Rashid on Sept 15.

Mr Khokhar submitted the appeal against three-year rigorous imprisonment and Rs1,896,000 fine handed down by an accountability court in a reference which charged him for not depositing in time the commutation fee in the purchase of land near Islamabad. Nawaz Khokhar is serving the prison term in the Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi.

HASHMI CASE: Two prosecution witnesses, including an income tax officer, were on Friday cross-examined by the counsel of ARD president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi. The accountability court deferred further proceedings in the reference till Oct 13.

The PML-N leader is accused of purchasing property valuing around Rs38 million through the money acquired by misusing his official authority. The PML-N acting president is serving 23-year imprisonment in a sedition case in the Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi.

DISPOSED OF: The Lahore High Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition seeking the promotion of hemp (herbaceous plant) at the state level with the observation that courts were not competent to interfere in policy matters nor could these perform the functions of the legislature.

Advocate M D Tahir had, through a writ petition filed in August, sought a court direction for the federal and provincial governments to allow and patronize the growing of hemp (bhang) at the state level.

Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad announced in his judgement that he was sending copies of the petition to the relevant authorities in the federal and provincial governments to consider if they could enact a law to meet the petitioner's objectives.