LAHORE, Feb 19: A division bench of the Lahore High Court admitted on Tuesday an appeal moved by Health Department secretary Hasan Waseem Afzal against his conviction for contempt and suspended the sentence awarded to him by a single judge.
The bench, which consists of Justices Karamat Nazir Bhandari and Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, has already admitted co-convict, SSP Aftab Ahmad Cheema’s appeal against the same judgment and order. The secretary being the main accused, was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and Rs5,000 in fine, or jail for another month, by Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif on Feb 11. The judge had suspended the sentence for 10 days.
Advocates SM Zafar and Saleem Sahgal appeared for the appellant and, as in the SSP’s appeal, the bench issued notice to the state for March 5. It was rather surprised by Mr Sahgal’s plea for suspension of conviction.
The appellant denied having tried to frustrate courts orders in a forgery case against his brother, Dr Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi, former deputy medico-legal officer, and his co-convict, Dr Muhammad Afzal.
He said the two doctors were suspended from service on Jan 5, 2001, following their conviction by Justice Sharif but reinstated when the Supreme Court suspended their sentence on appeal on March 3, 2001.
He took over as health secretary on June 14, 2001, a day after the Supreme Court judgment against the doctors became final.
Dr Zainab Perveen of Fatima Jinnah Medical College swore an affidavit, which questioned the medical board report incriminating the two doctors and was described by the impugned judgment as a manoeuvre to exonerate them, on Jan 8, 2001, and not on Jan 8, 2002, the appellant said.
He said he received a certified copy of the SC judgment on August 28, 2001, and ordered the suspension of convicts the same day with effect from the June 13, 2001, the day it was announced.
He also ordered that both the convicts be proceeded under the Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000.
He followed the law and rules, the appellant submitted, yet tendered an ‘unqualified’ apology for any lapse on his part on Feb 8 in his reply to Justice Sharif’s notice of Feb 1.
The trial judge neither provided the substance of the charge nor complied with the provisions of Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, relating to issuance of notice and framing of charge.
In fact, there was no charge against him in terms of Section 3 of the 1976 Act, which defines the offence of contempt.
He said he had an unblemished record as a civil servant and held the judiciary in the highest esteem.