MULTAN, June 2: A local court withheld its ruling on Wednesday regarding the request of an alleged international trafficker that his rebuttal of a statement that he had given under coercion against Asif Ali Zardari be sent to court hearing a drug smuggling case against former prime minister Benazir Bhutto's husband.

Mushtaq Malik alias Black Prince had handed over a hand written statement to the court on May 28 last during the hearing of a case (9-2001) registered against him and his accomplices with the Anti-Narcotics Force's local chapter.

He had informed the court that on June 1, 2002, when he was in the Multan central jail under judicial custody, the ANF staff obtained his physical remand from another court in a case (136/96) of Burewala.

Afterwards, he was taken to the ANF's Garden Town centre where he was subjected to severe physical and mental torture for 13 days. Later on June 14, he said, he was forced to depose against Mr Zardari in a case titled 'State vs Arif Baloch,' which was being heard by the then district and sessions judge of Lahore, Rana Zahid Mahmood, at the Kot Lakhpat jail.

He had urged that his fresh statement should be sent to the court currently hearing the 'State vs Arif Baloch' case to keep the record straight. At this, the court had summoned the ANF special prosecutor for June 2 to decided fate of the application.

The applicant's counsel, Habibullah Shakir, contended that his client had requested the superintendent of the jail where he was locked up under judicial custody to send his rebuttal to court hearing the case against Mr Zardari, but the official declined to oblige despite the fact that he was bound to do so under the rule 542 of the Pakistan Prison Rules.

He said his client had not been summoned for cross-examination since he recorded statement under duress against Mr Zardari, and thus he could not get an opportunity to make the situation clear before the court concerned.

Mr Shakir further argued that the court itself could send denial of his client to the relevant court, as he was in judicial custody under section 353 CrPC until a decision on the case.

Furthermore, district and sessions judges were supposed to head the prisons situated in their respective jurisdiction under chapter 27 of the High Court rules. "In this capacity the court can also give a prisoner all the rights he or she is entitled under law of the land," he concluded.

The ANF prosecutor, however, opposed arguments of the defence counsel and pleaded that the court had no authority to intervene in any matter that was not under trial with it. The court announced that it would give its verdict on the matter on June 8.