HYDERABAD, Oct 18: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, set aside the other day the conviction of a columnist and a chief editor of a Sindhi newspaper in a blasphemy case by an anti-terrorism court.

While granting bail to the appellants, the high court sent back the case to the original court for retrial. Appellant Ayub Khoso, the columnist, was represented by Salahuddin Panwhar, while Yousuf Leghari appeared on behalf of chief editor Zahoor Ansari.

The Anti-Terrorism Court, Mirpurkhas, had awarded a 17-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs17,000 in a blasphemy case on Nov 25, 1999, under sections 295-A PPC and 8(b)(D) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

The FIR was lodged by Allama Ahmed Mian Hamadi at the Tando Adam police station against Zahoor Ansari and Ayub Khoso for respectively publishing and writing a blasphemous column in the Sindhi newspaper.

Both the appellants were tried and sentenced in absentia by the trial court.

The high court has granted them bail for a sum of Rs200,000 each.

Later, Ayub Khoso had surrendered before the court.

Zahoor Ansari has been directed by the division bench to appear before the trial court for fresh trial.

The counsel argued that on the face of it the FIR does not state that the appellant belonged to any sectarian or terrorist group, and added that the offence as disclosed in the FIR had no nexus whatsoever with the objective of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

They pleaded that the police had booked the case before the Anti-terrorism Court instead of the sessions court which has the jurisdiction to try the accused under the circumstances disclosed in the FIR.

The lawyers said the offence did not take place within the jurisdiction of the Tando Adam police station or within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

They claimed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond doubt and that the article was in fact an academic discussion because many books had been published in the country on the subject.

The counsel for Khoso pleaded that the conviction of his client in absentia was illegal.

The court remanded the case to the trial court while setting aside the conviction.