KARACHI, De14: An application for acquittal of Leader of the Opposition in the Sindh Assembly Nisar Ahmed Khuhro in the Eshwar Lal case was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, South, Zaheer Ahmed Leghari.
The judge issued notice to the district attorney and complainant for December 15 for the hearing of the acquittal application, filed under Section 265-K by defence counsel Shahadat Awan.
The judge, in the earlier hearing, had fixed December 15 for the formal arraignment of Nisar Ahmed Khuhro, and three other PPP MPAs, Haji Munawar Ali Abbasi, Mohammad Nawaz Chandio, Mohammad Saleem Hingoro and Murad Ali Shah. The MPAs were booked by the Preedy police under Sections 324, 506-B, 109 and 34 PPC for attempted murder on the ruling party MPA, Eshwar Lal, on June 26.
Defence counsel Shahadat Awan submitted to the court that the case against Nisar Khuhro was the worst example of political victimisation of the opposition leader at the behest of the ruling party.
He contended that from the material on record, no case against Mr Khuhro could be made and there was no likelihood that he would be convicted for an offence. He argued that the aim of implicating the leader of the opposition in the provincial assembly in the case was to keep him busy in courts and legal matters, and that it was an attempt to tarnish and damage his reputation and to stop him from fighting for democracy.
The defence counsel contended that no role or injury was alleged to his client and there was no iota of evidence to connect him with the alleged offence.
He submitted that the trial of the accused was unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of law and an exercise in futility. “The present case has been registered with ulterior motives of ruling party. It is maliciously motivated to harass opponents,” he added.
He argued that one of the accused had been acquitted under Section 265-K of the Cr.PC and the case of his client was on the better footing. He said the FIR was false and concocted.
The defence counsel argued that the police had no jurisdiction to entertain the report of the complainant as the speaker of the assembly had already taken notice of it and announced his ruling to this effect. “In such circumstances, the inquiry or investigation by police is violation of Constitution, and also amounts to contempt,” he added.
The counsel further argued that the FIR had been lodged in violation of the provisions as contained in the Provincial Assembly Privileges Act, 1972, after deliberations and with unexplained delay of six days.
