New JIT in Model Town incident: Hearing of pleas against formation adjourned

LAHORE: A full bench headed by Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing of petitions against formation of new Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in Model Town incident when petitioners’ counsel was still on his feet.

The seven-member bench would hear more arguments of the petitioner’s counsel on Thursday (today).

Justice Aalia Neelum, Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem, Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh are the other members of the bench.

Earlier the counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Pakistan Awami Tehreek/complainant had all the opportunity to get an ‘independent’ investigation ordered by the trial court in its private complaint.

However, the complainant did not avail that opportunity, he said.

He referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court to establish that fresh investigation could not be ordered after the submission of challan in a case.

A member of the bench, observed that there were also judgments permitting fresh investigation at any stage.

The counsel said his case was that the complainant could not demand a new investigation after the submission of challan.

Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, who headed the bench, observed that the Supreme Court condoned the delay of more eight years allowing former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to challenge his conviction in plane hijacking case.

The counsel however said the matter of Nawaz was an appeal against the conviction and there were numerous cases whereby the courts condoned delays of even ten years in challenging the convictions.

The counsel said the advocate general failed to furnish any document about the formation of the JIT on multiple hearings before the previous bench.

And now the government produced a document claiming that the cabinet approved the constitution of the new JIT, he said.

Accusing the government of tampering with the record he urged the bench to take notice of it.

The counsel argued that nothing new would happen in case of the new investigation but wastage of time and the ego satisfaction of the complainant.

He further argued that permitting a new investigation at this stage of the case would amount to allowing a policeman to undo all orders of the courts.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021