RAWALPINDI, Jan 28: The visit of Pakistani judicial commission to Mumbai for cross examining the Indian prosecution witnesses of the Mumbai attack case is likely to be postponed.

The chances of postponement are nearly evident as only three days prior to the scheduled visit, the defence counsel have raised objections over sending the statement of Ajmal Kasab to India with the record and on the legality of the notification of government of Pakistan regarding the departure of the panel.

These objections were raised when the Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Shahid Rafique on Saturday resumed hearing of Mumbai attack case in Adiala jail. He, later, sought reply from the federal investigation agency (FIA) and adjourned the hearing till February 4.

The counsel of the suspect Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, advocate Khawaja Sultan Ahmed passed away on January 14 and his son former advocate general Punjab Khawaja Harris Ahmed submitted to the court his attorney to represent Lakhvi. Defence counsel Ahmed and Cheema moved an application in which they contended that since the lone survivor of the Mumbai attack Ajmal Kasab was not jointly tried with the seven suspects – Zakiur Rehman, Abdul Wajid, Mazhar Iqbal, Hammad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jameel, Jamil Ahmed, and Younas Anjum – therefore, his confessional statement recorded before the Indian woman magistrate R.V. Sawant Waghule cannot be exhibited in their case under article 43 of evidence act.

FIA produced the schedule of Mumbai attack judicial commission according to which the commission was available from February 1 to February 10.

According to the letter sent by the Indian ministry for external affairs on January 16, the Chief Justice Mumbai High Court conveyed the dates on which the commission headed by Mumbai’s chief metropolitan magistrate could start the proceeding.

The letter also sought the traveling details of Pakistani panel from the authorities of the ministry of foreign affairs. In its reply, the foreign ministry also confirmed the visit of Pakistani panel from February 1 to 10.

The defence counsel challenged the foreign ministry’s notification and contended that the said notification should have been issued by the ministry of law and justice.

Advocate Cheema told Dawn that the confessional statement of Kasab would be acceptable for them only when he would be tried in Pakistan along with the seven suspects and they moved these applications because they wanted to bring these objections on record which would help them in future arguments.

FIA senior public prosecutor Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali reminded the court that it had passed orders for handing over the record including the confessional statement of Kasab to the Mumbai judge and all the arrangements for the departure of the Pakistani panel had also been finalised.

He told Dawn that defence counsel might challenge the orders of the court in the High Court but it could not be challenged in the same forum of ATC.

He said till the disposal of these applications, the panel could not travel to India to become part of the commission and their visit might be postponed. When asked whether he would seek new schedule for panel’s visit. Ali replied: “This matter was not among the individuals but was to be decided at the government-to-government level and any change was possible at that level only.”

It may be pertinent to mention that after giving consent of becoming part of the commission, the defence counsel Khawaja Sultan Ahmed, Riaz Akram Cheema, Aisam bin Haris, Fakhar Hayat, and Ihsan Satti on December 17 last year submitted their travel documents in the court to become part of the judicial commission.