LAHORE, Oct 16: The Lahore High Court has ruled that former Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif’s petition for a summons that may enable him to return to Pakistan and appear in an anti-terrorism court in Lahore, is not maintainable.

A single bench of the Lahore High Court, comprising Justice Raja Mohammad Sabir, issued a short order late in the afternoon on Thursday, upholding the objection of a deputy registrar that the petitioner was a fugitive from justice. “He has been booked in a murder case and declared a proclaimed offender. The proceedings for his appearance in the anti-terrorism court are pending and he cannot, therefore, seek relief (from the high court) without first surrendering to the court.”

The relief Mr Sharif was seeking through the petition, was service of a summons abroad (Saudi Arabia) that would enable him to appear in the Anti-Terrorism Court-III in Lahore. He had also prayed to the Lahore High Court to direct the government not to hinder his appearance in the trial court.

The anti-terrorism court is proceeding on a criminal case vide an FIR lodged by Saeedudin with the Sabzazar police on March 29, 2001, on charges that five young people, including his son, were killed in a fake police encounter on April 27, 1998, and that the then chief minister, Shahbaz Sharif, was involved in the conspiracy.

According to the petition, the police later held an inquiry and submitted a report to the ATC absolving Mr Sharif of the conspiracy charge along with others, mainly police officials. The ATC judge did not agree to the report and issued summons to Mr Sharif on June 5 this year for appearance on June 10. The police reported back that Mr Sharif was in Saudi Arabia and not in Pakistan.

The petitioner submitted that the process of summoning him continued till he was declared a proclaimed offender and an absconder on July 18. When Mr Sharif read about it in the US, he faxed a message to the ATC on Aug 2 with the request that the order declaring him an absconder and a proclaimed offender be recalled. The ATC judge ignored the fax and also dismissed an appeal against the order. The writ petition against the ATC judge’s order was filed on Oct 1 and the registrar’s office raised an objection to its maintainability on Oct 4.

The counsel for petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, contended that the office had raised an objection that amounted to a judgment, which was jurisdiction of the superior court. The registrar’s objection was not technical. The office had based its objection on merits of the petition and thus acted beyond its jurisdiction. He submitted that the observation made in the objection had virtually decided the writ petition, and this was not permissible under the rules. He contended that if the objection was regarded as legal, the petition might be put before the court as an objection case.

Mr Malik argued that Mr Sharif was not a fugitive and was prepared to stand trial and no case was pending against him anywhere in Pakistan. Under the circumstances, the observation of registrar’s office about the fugitive status of the petitioner was misplaced and all information of the office was based on contents of the petition itself, which was pending before the trial court.

The counsel submitted that the case against Mr Sharif was separated from other persons nominated in the FIR only on grounds that he was not available. This amounted to touching upon merits of the case, which fell within the jurisdiction of the court.

Manzoor Malik cited a number of references from reported cases that determined terms like absconder, and contended that only a wilful attempt to avoid service of summons made one an absconder. He also questioned the timing and said the murder conspiracy case was registered about four months after the petitioner was sent on exile in Dec 2000. The case was sent to the ATC for trial in Sept 2002 and the petitioner had no knowledge of the trial proceedings by Aug 2003. “The trial court’s act of declaring the petitioner an absconder and a proclaimed offender was blatantly illegal, because it could have adopted a legal process to ensure the service of summons.”