ISLAMABAD: Two weeks after commencement of the treason trial of former president retired General Pervez Musharraf, the special court reserved on Wednesday its judgment on the basic issue of its mode of functioning.

The court is likely to announce on Friday whether it should start proceedings under the criminal procedure code (CrPC) or frame its own rules to try the former army chief.

The court will examine on Thursday (today) a medical report of Gen Musharraf submitted by the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology (AFIC) two days ago.

Meanwhile, defence lawyers Sharifuddin Pirzada, Mohammad Ibrahim Satti and Anwar Mansoor Khan met on Wednesday their ailing client in the AFIC for the first time since the former president was admitted to the military-run hospital on Jan 2, sources privy to the lawyers told Dawn.

The meeting lasted about one hour from 3.47pm to 4.50pm. The lawyers discussed with Gen Musharraf legal issues relating to the treason case, particularly the hearing on his medical certificate, the sources said.

Advocate Satti neither confirmed nor denied his meeting with the former military ruler.

The three-judge special court, comprising Justice Faisal Arab of the Sindh High Court, Justice Tahira Safdar of the Balochistan High Court and Justice Yawar Ali of the Lahore High Court, decided to announce the judgment on Friday. After that it will take up an application of Gen Musharraf seeking transfer of the case to a military court.

Advocate Akram Sheikh, head of the prosecution team, concluded his arguments on the applicability of CrPC in the high treason case.

On Tuesday, Musharraf’s counsel Anwar Mansoor Khan contended that the CrPC did not apply to the trial because the high treason case against his client had been filed under Article 6 of the constitution.

According to him, an accused facing treason charges must be tried on a par with the other constitutional offence of contempt of court as mentioned in Article 204 of the constitution. He claimed that since the contempt of court was a constitutional and non-bailable offence, an accused facing another constitutional offence of high treason could not be taken into custody.

The counsel argued that under Article 204, a court evolved its own rules to punish a person who abused, interfered with or obstructed the process of the court.

On Wednesday, Akram Sheikh argued that the CrPC could be applied to the high treason trial as there were certain provisions under which the special court adopted the process provided in the criminal procedure code.

According to him, the entire chapter of summoning an accused, issuance of arrest warrants, proclamation and attachment of the property of the accused, delivery of judgment and execution of decisions of special courts were similar to the procedure mentioned in the CrPC.

While Mr Sheikh was arguing the case, Justice Arab, at the request of Musharraf’s lawyers, asked him to provide the copy of a relevant case law to the defence side.

At this Mr Sheikh said: “I will provide them the copy only to show obedience to the court. Otherwise, we never experienced such charitable gestures from their side.”

Musharraf’s counsel Anwar Mansoor replied in a lighter tone: “Yesterday he (Mr Sheikh) was not in the courtroom and the atmosphere was relaxed. He charged it after drinking hot water.”

Perhaps the counsel was referring to the warm water Mr Sheikh used to sip in short intervals during the proceedings.

Mr Mansoor suggested that after giving a decision on the applicability of CrPC, the court might hear the application filed against the notification about the establishment of the special court.

The court in its order said: “We prefer to decide the issue of CrPC first. On Thursday we will take up the matter of medical certificate (of Gen Musharraf).”