Islamabad:
The Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court listened to Wednesday that a court of delivering civil to military custody for the trial on the basis of the first information report (FIR) was only correct.
Faisal Siddiqui, the civil society lawyer, continued his arguments before a bank of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan in the intra-court appeal on the trial of civilians in the Military Court. In his arguments, he said that the defendant could be delivered only after the accusation.
Siddiqui told the court that Uzair Bhandari, the lawyer of the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI), took the position that the jurisdiction of the intra-couurt appeal was limited. “I do not agree with the position of Uzair Bhandari,” he said.
Sitting at the bank, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that Bhandari trusted the note of Judge Mansoor Ali Shah in the case of practice and procedure. Siddiqui said that if the scope of the appeal was limited, “many of our appeals” would be dismissed.
Siddiqui argued that the Constitutional Bank could annul the judgment of a civilian even without declaring the provisions of the law of the null and null army. He also said that the arbitrary power of the officer in command of delivering the accused under section 94 was not valid.
Sitting at the bank, Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan said he had been asking the question from the beginning if there was any formal order of Judge Atc for the hand on the accused. Siddiqui replied that there was an order but no reasons were given.
Judge Jamal Commandkhail asked if the court himself had to decide if he had the jurisdiction to listen to the case or it was mandatory that any part opposed the jurisdiction. About that, Judge Aminuddin said the court itself had to determine its jurisdiction.
Siddiqui Siddiqui said that the nature of the crime was determined only after the accusation was presented. Judge Commandkhail said that if a magistrate gave an accused to the army, even then that defendant had the right to appeal, which would finally reach the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.
The audience was postponed until Thursday (today).
