Non-return of cipher documents an offence, FIA tells IHC

ISLAMABAD: Federal Investigation Agency prosecutor Hamid Ali Shah has told the Islamabad High Court that non-return of cipher documents is an offence as per the security of cipher guidelines prepared by the Cabinet Division.

He said it has been established that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan had a copy of the cipher, and out of nine cipher copies only one copy from the Prime Minister House did not return. He said the remaining eight copies had been destroyed after their return.

The FIA prosecutor said prosecution witness Azam Khan had made his statement on oath taken on the Holy Quran, and that could not be taken lightly.

The court directed the prosecutor to assist the court on the point whether in the absence of defence counsel the statement of the accused has any effect. The court also directed prosecutor to provide the cipher guidelines booklet to appellant’s counsel.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on Thursday heard the appeals of PTI founder Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the cipher case.

FIA prosecutor Hamid Ali Shah read out the PTI founder’s recorded statement in his defence during the trial as an accused.

The court inquired whether the statement of the PTI founder as an accused was recorded in the absence of his counsel and whether the statement under Section 342 of the CrPC has any effect in absence of the defence counsel.

It also inquired whether the importance of the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the CrPC in the absence of the defence counsel would reduce, and directed the prosecutor to argue on such queries of the court.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb inquired the prosecutor to apprise the court about how the cipher document became an accountable document.

The court observed that if it is supposed that there was no cipher guidelines booklet and the cipher was not an accountable document, the case is made out or not.

The court inquired whether it is an offence if a document comes to the prime minister and it is to be returned but PM does not do so. The prosecutor replied that indeed it would be an offence.

The chief justice inquired whether all the documents coming from foreign countries are confidential, and if it would be fine if any document which is not an accountable is lost.

The court observed that almost a thousand letters may come to the PM House daily and maybe one or two are misplaced unintentionally.

The FIA prosecutor said it is clear that a case will be registered if a document is lost. He said that the appellants’ appeal was based on error in the judgment of the trial court.

Salman Safdar said the procedure clause was available in cipher guidelines in case of loss of a cipher document and it is told that this clause is written in the cipher guidelines booklet.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb asked the prosecutor to provide a copy of the guidelines booklet to the appellant’s counsel. The FIA prosecutor said that he was providing him the copy but he did not take it because he knew that he was also going to be booked.

The chief justice observed that the court also returned the cipher guidelines booklet, lest a case should b registered against the judges. The prosecutor submitted that court had returned the copy of the cipher guidelines booklet.

Hamid Ali Shah argued that if the cipher is lost or stolen, the senior security officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence Bureau should be informed.

He said that out of the nine copies of the cipher, only one copy was not returned from the Prime Minister House, and the remaining eight copies of the cipher were discarded when they were returned.

The PTI founder’s counsel Salman Safdar said that he was curious about when the FIA prosecutor would complete his arguments.

The FIA prosecutor said the appellant’s counsel himself had taken fourteen hearings for completing his arguments. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb observed that the prosecutor had said that he would take four hearings to conclude his arguments.

The chief justice inquired the prosecutor how much time he would take to complete his arguments as four hearings had been completed.

Hamid Ali Shah replied that he had sought four complete days instead of four hearings and assured the court that he would conclude arguments in another five hours. The court adjourned further hearing on the appeals till May 6.