KARACHI, Feb 24 The Sindh High Court on Wednesday ordered the appointment of SSP Niaz Ahmed Khoso as investigation officer in a case against SSP Chaudhry Aslam Khan and his subordinate officials for killing Abdul Rahman Baloch, better known as Rahman Dakait, and his three aides in an alleged fake police encounter.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh disposed of the criminal review application of the state questioning the powers of the high court to appoint a DIG as inquiry officer.

The case against the SSP and his subordinates was registered on Feb 4 on the orders of the SHC on two identical petitions — one filed by Farzana, the widow of Rahman 'Dakait', and the other by Farah, a sister of Aurangzeb — who alleged that the four men were killed in a fake police encounter.

The state appeal said that only the provincial police officer is empowered to appoint any police officer as inquiry officer under the Police Order, 2000.

The court was requested in the review application that till a decision in the instant review application, DIG Bashir Memon be stopped from conducting investigations.

The bench on Wednesday ordered the appointment of SSP Khoso with the consent of state counsel Assistant Advocate-General Adnan Karim Memon and Advocate Haider Shah for Rahman's widow.

The government law officer referred to a Supreme Court judgment in a case of Shahnaz Begum versus State (1971) and submitted that the apex court had held that the superior courts shall not interfere in the investigation process.

However, Advocate Haider Shah opposed the AAG's contention and stated that the superior courts had appointed police officials as investigations officers in several cases.

He also questioned the maintainability of the state's review application before the court and stated that the state should have moved the Supreme Court if aggrieved by the SHC order.

After hearing the arguments, the bench restrained DIG Memon from conducting further investigations into the case and directed him to hand over the investigations to SSP Khoso.

According to Rahman Baloch's widow, her husband had gone to Turbat, Balochistan, to have a business meeting with his friends — Aurangzeb Baloch, a transporter, Nazeer Baloch, a business partner, and Aqeel Ahmed Baloch, a shoe dealer — and the four were intercepted by the police on Aug 9, 2009 between 5pm and 5.30pm near Zero Point on the Coastal Highway and they were subsequently “kidnapped and kept somewhere else”.

The petitioner submitted that the four friends were killed on the night of Aug 10, 2009 in a fake encounter at a place near the Steel Town police station.

She stated that her husband was a well-known social worker of Lyari and he was considered a hurdle in their way by some politicians as well as the bureaucracy, who were determined to eliminate him.

In the proposed FIR, Rahman's widow said “I make a complaint against Mohammed Aslam Khan, commonly known as Chaudhry Aslam, SSP East Zone, Sindh, and his party who due to old enmity and not giving 'bhatta' earlier also registered false cases against my husband by showing two fake encounters. It is, therefore, prayed that a case of murder and kidnapping for ransom be registered against Mohammed Aslam (Chaudhry Aslam) and the police party and legal proceedings may be initiated against them.”

While disposing of the two petitions, the bench observed “In our opinion, the law does not countenance the refusal of any police officer to record the FIR vis-à-vis a cognizable offence. It is another matter as to what the result of such FIR would eventually be after investigation etc. In the proposed FIR entirely a different version has been given by the complainant, Mst Farzana.

There is no law which prohibits the lodging of a counter FIR and, in fact, in so many cases counter versions of same incident have been recorded.”

Allowing the petition of Rahman's widow to the extent that the SHO would lodge a counter FIR, the bench also granted the request of the petitioner and her counsel for appointing DIG Bashir Memon to conduct an “impartial investigation after the lodging of the FIR”.

Lyari Expressway

affectees' case

The division bench directed the project director of the Lyari Expressway and the executive district officer (EDO) to file comments within 15 days in a petition seeking compensation for the affected people of the Lyari Expressway project.

Bilal Haroon Awan and four other petitioners, represented by Advocate Shaukat Ali Shaikh, submitted before the court that their commercial properties had been acquired by the authorities for the Lyari Expressway project, but they were not given compensation.

They impleaded the federal finance secretary, Sindh chief secretary, project director of the Lyari Expressway, EDO Revenue, deputy attorney-general, Sindh advocate-general and the city government as respondents.

The petitioner counsel stated that the executive district officer (revenue) had written a letter to the project director of the Lyari Expressway for the disbursement of Rs250 million as compensation to the petitioners against their acquired properties.

He said the project director in his reply to the EDO took pleas that he would disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners when he received Rs1,048 million from the federal government.

The counsel prayed to the court to direct the federal finance secretary to disburse the amount in favour of the project director.

He requested the court to direct the project director to immediately release the amount to the EDO revenue.

The counsel further prayed to the court to direct the Lyari Expressway project director to arrange the compensation from other development resettlement funds in case the federal government did not release the funds.

The bench comprising Justices Mushir Alam and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi issued notices to the federal finance secretary, Sindh chief secretary, project director of the Lyari Expressway, EDO Revenue, deputy attorney general, Sindh advocate-general and the city government.

The bench adjourned the hearing to a date to be fixed by the court's office.