November 16, 2007	Friday	Ziqa’ad 05, 1428

ISLAMABAD, Nov 15: The Supreme Court on Thursday admitted for regular hearing appeals against convictions awarded to seven senior administration officials and police personnel of the capital for roughing up now removed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on March 13.

The SC maintained suspension of the sentences it earlier awarded to the officials.

On November 1, a bench of the Supreme Court had sentenced the officials, but the sentences were suspended for 15 days on the request of the convicts’ counsel for filing appeals against the convictions.

Former Islamabad chief commissioner Khalid Pervaiz and deputy commissioner Chaudhry Mohammad Ali were sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court, former inspector-general of police Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed and senior superintendent of police Capt (retired) Zafar Iqbal were sentenced to 15 days in jail and deputy superintendent of police Jamil Hashmi, inspector Rukhsar Mehdi and assistant sub-inspector Mohammad Siraj to one- month imprisonment.

On Thursday a 10-member bench comprising judges, who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), also barred the respective departments from taking any adverse action against the appellants till pendency of the appeals. Notices were also served on the state, which is the respondent in the case.

Advocate Mujeebur Rehman, represented the chief commissioner and the deputy commissioner as their legal counsel, Advocate Raja Bashir appeared on behalf of the IG and SP while Advocate Ibrahim Satti appeared on behalf of DSP Jamil Hashmi.

Though the counsel pleaded for the suspension of the convictions, the court maintained the suspension of the sentences till the appeals were settled by the court.

These officers were earlier indicted by a three-member bench comprising Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Justice Nasirul Mulk for maltreating and manhandling the chief justice when he tried to go on foot, along with his wife, to the Supreme Court to face a presidential reference before the Supreme Judicial Council.

Television footage and newspaper photographs of the incident had caused uproar in the country, leading to strong protests from various sections of the society.

While awarding punishment, the judgment had held that the Supreme Court was constrained to punish the contemners as despite bona fide repentance and remorse expressed by them, it was found necessary to convict them and award punishment commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by them.