- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Dec 04 (APP): The district and sessions court of Islamabad on Thursday delivered its reserved decision, rejecting a set of three petitions linked to the ongoing trial of lawyer and activist Iman Mazari and advocate Hadi Ali Chattha.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka announced the verdict after hearing arguments from all sides.
The court turned down Mazari’s request for acquittal and dismissed the joint petitions filed by Mazari and Chattha seeking a fresh cross-examination of witnesses and challenging the appointment of the state counsel.
Following the decision, the court directed the two accused to return at 2pm to record their statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The hearing was adjourned until then.
Earlier, at the start of the day’s proceedings, Judge Majoka asked about the status of the Section 342 questionnaire. Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha informed the court they had not yet received a copy. The judge assured the defence that he would type the questionnaire himself and provide a copy by 10am. The hearing was then paused until that time.
When the session resumed, Islamabad Bar Association President Naeem Ali Gujar submitted his power of attorney. Mazari and Chattha also appeared before the court.
Representing both accused, Gujar filed a request to restore their right to cross-examine witnesses. He asked the court to grant time so the defence could assist the court in resolving the matter effectively.
Judge Majoka referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in the Musharraf case, noting that when an accused repeatedly fails to appear, the court can proceed with the trial in their absence. Chattha informed the court that they also intended to file a request to transfer the case from the current court. The judge then deferred the hearing until 11am.
After the break, a group of senior lawyers—including Sheer Afzal Marwat, Naeem Gujar, Raja Aleem Abbasi and others—appeared to present arguments. Marwat argued on the petition challenging the appointment of the state counsel, questioning whether the mandatory requirement of five years of criminal law practice was fulfilled. He argued that the accused must have confidence in any state-appointed counsel. Marwat cited several high court and Supreme Court rulings to support his position.
He further told the court that the defence needed time to prepare and that recent events, including the reported detention of Chattha, had created difficulties. Bar member Raja Aleem Abbasi added that Mazari and Chattha had expressed their lack of trust in the state-appointed counsel and requested that witnesses be recalled so the defence could cross-examine them.
Both Marwat and Gujar requested the court to summon the witnesses again and allow some time to resolve the concerns raised by the defence.
Arguments on the petition challenging the state counsel concluded, following which the court moved to announce its decision.