PESHAWAR, Jan 13: The Peshawar High Court on Thursday directed an additional advocate general to seek instruction from the provincial government whether the law pertaining to unnatural offences is applicable to the former staffers of a local school charged with sexual abuse of students.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Tariq Pervez and Justice Dost Muhammad Khan directed the additional advocate general, Muhammad Saeed Khan, to seek the required information from the government within a week.

The bench observed that apparently section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, dealing with unnatural offences, was not applicable to the instant case. The court took up for hearing eight identical writ petitions filed by former employees of the City Government Higher Secondary School No 3 for Boys, seeking quashment of the FIR filed against them at Kabuli police station on Oct 23.

The petitioners are: two former principals Hussain Shah and Haji Abdur Rasheed; three teachers namely Abdul Qayyum, Himayatullah and Mubarak Ahmad; two clerks Shahnawaz and Muhammad Humayun; and a watchman Abdul Baseer.

Except for Hussain Shah, Abdur Rasheed and Mubarak Ahmad, the rest of the five accused are behind the bars as their bail applications were rejected by the additional district and sessions judge and judicial magistrate concerned.

Advocate Sattar Khan appeared for the petitioners and argued that the instant case was registered on the basis of hearsay and rumours and no evidence was available on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence.

He argued that the FIR was registered under section 377, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of Pakistan Penal Code. He contended that section 377 of the PPC was not applicable to their case as there was not a single student who had charged them with sexually abusing him.

Elaborating his point, Mr Sattar Khan stated that section 377 pertained to sexual intercourse, against the order of nature, with any man, woman or animal. He added that in none of the inquiries conducted in this case was it mentioned that any student was sexually abused.

He added that at the most the petitioners could be charged with misconduct and violation of discipline, but not with molesting students. The bench inquired from the AAG Muhammad Saeed Khan why section 377 was applied to this case when there was no mention of sexual abuse and when no victim had complained against the petitioners.