15 January 2005	Saturday	04 Zilhaj 1425

KARACHI, Jan 14: The Sindh High Court adjourned the hearing of arguments on Friday against the detention of Dr Akmal Waheed and Dr Arshad Waheed under the preventive custody provisions of the Anti-Terrorist Act.

Appearing for the petitioner wives of the detainees, Advocate M. Ilyas khan said the detention order was untenable as it had been made without observing certain conditions precedent.

The detainees were not afforded an opportunity to question the inclusion of their names in the ATA schedule as associates of three terrorist organizations. The government notified their names and passed the detention order simultaneously.

Under the ATA provisions, any person notified in the schedule was to be kept under observation. He could also be asked to furnish security. The only material available with the government against the detainees were the confessional statements allegedly made by Jundullah activists involved in the ambush on the Karachi Corps commander.

Even the investigation officer of the case being tried against them conceded that he had no evidence except the confessional statements. The material the advocate-general sought to produce in chamber consisted of videos of the activists making the alleged confessions, the counsel maintained.

The bench, comprising Justices Ataur Rehman and Zia Pervez adjourned further hearing to Jan 18. Concluding his arguments on Thursday, Advocate-General Anwar Mansoor Khan said the impugned detention orders were duly warranted by the law and the evidence collected by the official agencies.

The sensitive material could not be made public as it would harm the drive against the terrorist network, he submitted. Meanwhile, the bench issued notices in a petition moved by a widow through Advocate Akhtar Jamal alleging that her ailing son was being detained after serving out his five-year sentence.

Petitioner Shahjahan Begum alleged that her son, Muzaffar Ali, was arrested in May 1997 and convicted and sentenced by a sessions court in May 2003. The judgment allowed him the benefit of remissions.

If his confinement as an under-trial prisoner was included in his jail term and remissions granted under Section 382 of the criminal procedure code, he should have been released by now.

The petitioner said she approached the Central Prison (Karachi) authorities but they denied her any information about her son, who was a minor at the time of his arrest. The bench directed that notices be issued to the advocate-general and the jail authorities for a date in office.