|
|
|
| July 8, 2005 | Friday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 30, 1426 |
SC to resume hearing in Hashmi’s appeal: Mutiny case
ISLAMABAD, July 7: The Supreme Court will resume hearing of an appeal of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) president, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, against his conviction in a mutiny case. Earlier, the apex court had adjourned for a fortnight the hearing of the case after serving notice on Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Justice Mohammad Nawaz Raza will take up the appeal against the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi bench’s order of rejecting Mr Hashmi’s bail plea. Senior Advocate Akram Sheikh is representing Javed Hashmi before the court.
Javed Hashmi was sentenced to 23 years in jail on April 12, 2004 for inciting mutiny, defaming army and army officers, forgery and abetment.
In his appeal, Mr Hashmi contended that freedom of expression of every parliamentarian within the parliament, including its cafeteria, was protected under the Constitution and this right could not be challenged before any court of law.
Therefore, no action can be taken against any incident that occurred within the precincts of the parliament without seeking prior permission of the National Assembly speaker, he contended.
Many sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), under which he was booked, were non-cognizable and therefore could not be registered by police unless the complainant was the federal government, he said, adding that in this case, a retired major Khurshid Ahmed was the complainant who could not have lodged the case against a member of the parliament, he pleaded.
He contended that the in-camera trial against his client in a secluded room of Adiala Jail Rawalpindi was contrary to UN Charter on Human Rights, also ratified by Pakistan.
Javed Hashmi contended that he already had served a substantial part of his punishment, therefore, he should be released on bail.
In his appeal, the ARD president pleaded that he was falsely and maliciously implicated in a mutiny case, concocted by the government intelligence agencies besides his conviction was also not supported by any evidence.
|
|
|
|
