Military courts' verdicts: SC rejects federation plea seeking restraint on PHC's power to deliver judgements

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the federation's plea seeking restrain on Peshawar High Court (PHC) power to render judgments on another 218 petitions against the military courts' verdicts.

Additional Attorney General Sajid Illyas Bhatti at the end of the hearing of the federation's appeals against the PHC requested the bench to restrain the high court from announcing judgments on more than 200 petitions seeking acquittal.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned how they can stop a high court from delivering judgments?

"Let it first decide the matter," he added.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, is already seized with the federation's plea against the high court judgment to release 74 convicts sentenced by military courts.

The PHC on 18th October, 2018 had overturned the military court's sentences on the basis of a lack of evidence.

The apex court, however, in November 2018, hearing the federation's appeal, directed the jail authorities not to release 74 hardcore criminals, whom the PHC had acquitted from the charges.

It, however, asked the authorities that their death sentences will not be executed till the final adjudication of the case.

Earlier, AAG Sajid Illyas argued that under Clause 5 of Article 199 of the Constitution the high court had no jurisdiction to hear the petitions against the verdict of the military courts as the high court was an appellate forum to take up appeals against the military courts.

He informed the bench that despite the 'confessional' statements of the convicts there were more evidences against them.

Justice Muneeb observed that defence lawyers' stance was that most of the statements were written by one man and the format of the statements was the same.

The bench directed the federation to submit details of the 74 individuals who were convicted by military courts.

The AAG stated that in most of the cases the private counsel were provided to the accused, adding the accused did not accept the offer of the defending counsel because they were aware of the crimes.

Sajid told that the PHC had dismissed the military courts' judgment on the basis of presumption.

Advocate Laiq Khan Swati contended that the military courts had passed the judgment without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The brother of the petitioner was not given a fair trial within the meaning of Article 10-A of the Constitution and the Pakistan Army Act, 1952/Pakistan Army Rules 1954. The petitioner is a civilian therefore not covered under the Pakistan Army Act/Rules and all his fundamental rights are intact.

He contended that under Section 133(b) of Army Act, appeal is to be filed within 40 days.

He said the proceedings have not been made available to the petitioner nor has the family has been denied access to provide the services of lawyer of his own choice.

The Pakistan Army Rules 23, 24, 73, 74, 87 and 130, and Article 9, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution provides an accused, fundamental rights to be represented by a legal practitioner in a criminal charge against him.

However, the petitioner's brother was not only denied the right conferred by the Constitution, but also by the Pakistan Army Act, Rules.

The mandatory conditions to exercise the jurisdiction were not fulfilled; therefore the subsequent proceedings, which followed suffered from the want of jurisdiction and become void and illegal.

The case was adjourned until Tuesday (today).