ISLAMABAD, Oct 19 (APP):The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday issued notices and sought responses on appeals filed by lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha against the rejection of their applications challenging the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism provisions in the barrier-removal case.
A division bench comprising Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand heard the appeals, during which defence lawyers Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and others appeared before the court.
During the hearing, Justice Minhas asked whether the accused had received copies of the case documents. Advocate Riasat Ali Azad replied that the documents had not been provided and said he wanted to examine the charge framed against his clients.
Azad argued that the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) had passed the order without jurisdiction and that the accused had not been supplied with copies of the challan.
He further contended that the charge should have been read out to the accused in their presence, but they were not physically present in court when it was framed. He maintained that proceedings could not lawfully advance in their absence and alleged that the procedure also violated a decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee.
Justice Minhas asked whether the trial was being conducted through a video link. Azad explained that the proceedings had initially taken place through video link but had shifted to an in-jail trial from the previous hearing.
When the judge asked whose signatures appeared on the charge, the defence counsel said his own signatures were present, while those of the accused were missing. He argued that the accused should have signed the charge in accordance with the law.
The judge questioned whether proceedings could not continue through video link, observing that the accused had appeared through the facility and the counsel’s attendance had been marked when the charge was framed.
Azad responded that his clients had not been present when he signed the document and requested the court to summon the video recording of the proceedings. Justice Minhas asked him to identify the legal provision requiring the accused to be physically produced before the court during the framing of charges.
The defence also challenged the inclusion of terrorism provisions in the case and requested a stay of the trial proceedings.
Advocate Zainab Janjua informed the bench that the case was scheduled for an in-jail trial at 2:30 pm.
The bench said it would issue an order and inform the parties, adding that notices had been issued and the matter would be considered after the responses were received.
Mazari and Chattha have approached the IHC after the ATC rejected their applications challenging the framing of charges and seeking the removal of terrorism provisions from the case.