PESHAWAR, Sept 2: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the pronouncement of the verdict by an anti- terrorism court in Abbotabad in the murder case of a doctor of Ayub Medical College.
A single bench of the court comprising Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal issued notice to the NWFP advocate-general for Sept 4 and directed that till a time the anti-terrorism court, which tried an advocate of the high court Sardar Moazam, should not pronounce its judgment. The trial court had fixed Sept 3 for announcing the verdict.
The Supreme Court issued the order soon after a two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court dismissed a writ petition of the accused Sardar Moazam, challenging his trial by the anti- terrorism court.
The high court’s bench comprising Justice Tariq Pervez and Justice Qazi Ahsanullah Qureshi dismissing his petition, observed that his case could be tried by the ATC.
Advocate Qazi Mohammad Jamil appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court’s bench and argued that if the trial court pronounced its verdict on Wednesday then the leave to appeal petition of the petitioner would become infructuous.
The high court had reserved its order on Aug 26 after completion of arguments by the petitioner’s counsel Sardar Nasir Aslam Khan and advocate Mushtaq Ahmad Tahirkheli, representing the complainant and pronounced it on Tuesday.
The accused-petitioner, Sardar Moazam, is charged of killing Dr Farooq of AMC and injuring another doctor Farman Khan on June 16 at Abbotabad. The murder of Dr Farooq resulted in widespread violence by the doctors and students in Abbotabad following which Sardar Moazam was arrested.
An ATC started trial of the accused two months ago following which he filed a writ petition before the high court, praying that his case should be shifted to an ordinary court.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that it was not a case of terrorism. He contended that it was a simple murder case and got nothing to do with terrorism. He stated that the FIR of the case was registered under section 302 of the Pakistan penal Code and the sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were later on added to it. He added that it was evident from the FIR that it was a case of grave and sudden provocation and hence the petitioner could not be tried by the ATC.
Mr Tahirkheli argued that the act of the petitioner clearly fell under the definition of terrorism given in the Anti- Terrorism Act of 1997. He cited various judgments of the superior courts in which ordinary cases were tried by the ATC. He pointed out that the trial by the ATC was in the final stages and the petitioner should have approached the high court when the case was referred to the ATC.