KARACHI: Order reserved on Khuhro’s acquittal plea in Ishwar case
By Ali Hazrat Bacha
KARACHI, June 23: The district and sessions judge, South, Zaheer Ahmed S. Leghari, reserved his order on the acquittal plea of Leader of the Opposition in the Sindh Assembly Nisar Ahmed Khuhro in the Ishwar Lal case on Saturday.
After hearing the final arguments of defence attorney Shahadat Awan and district attorney Mohammed Rashid Khan and complainant’s attorney Malik Naeem, the judge fixed June 30 for the pronouncement of his order.
The district attorney and the complainant’s attorney opposed the acquittal plea. They argued that the incident was instigated by the leader of the opposition, who was present in the assembly hall at the time of the incident. The prosecution lawyers also submitted that Nisar Khurho went out only for a while before the incident.
The defence lawyer, however, argued that the name of his client was not mentioned in the inquiry conducted by the Sindh Assembly secretary. “Nor was his name mentioned in the ruling of the assembly speaker,” he said.
Shahadat Awan alleged 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 no case against Mr Khuhro could be made with the material on record.
Arguing that the aim of implicating the opposition leader in the case was to keep him busy in courts and legal matters, the counsel said it was an attempt to tarnish his reputation and stop him from his struggle for democracy.
The defence counsel contended that no role or injury was alleged to his client and there was not a shred 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 the 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 CrPC and the case of his client was on the better footings, as 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 a violation of the constitution, and also amounts to contempt,” he added.
Mr Awan 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 an unexplained delay of six days.
