close
Thursday December 26, 2024

Convicts of military court: Lawyers asked to prepare cases, assist court on next hearing

A division bench comprising Justice SM Attique Shah and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah hears case

By Amjad Safi
November 29, 2024
A lawyer walks past in front of the Peshawar High Court building.—AFP/File
A lawyer walks past in front of the Peshawar High Court building.—AFP/File

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday directed the petitioners’ lawyers to make thorough preparation for the cases and assistance of the court during the next hearing in the petitions of 17 accused convicted by the military courts.

A division bench comprising Justice SM Attique Shah and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah heard the case.

Sadiq Ahmad advocate, counsel for petitioner Riaz, informed the court that his client was arrested in 2013, sentenced to seven years term in 2018, and since then he had been in prison for 11 years.

According to law, he argued that the petitioner had completed his sentence, which was handed down under Section 135 of the Military Act.

Also, he pleaded that the benefit of Section 382-B (counting detention period as part of the sentence) was provided, considering the time spent during the trial.

However, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah told the court that under military court rules, a sentence had to begin when it was signed by the president of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. He argued that the petitioner’s sentence had not yet been completed. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah asked about the maximum punishment under the section in question.

Upon this, a representative of the JAG branch responded that the maximum sentence was 25 years, and the petitioner was kept in an internment centre, which did not fall under their jurisdiction.

He contended that the benefit of Section 382-B was applied in the judgment, but only in cases of reduced sentences.

The petitioner’s lawyer prayed the court that benefit should be given to the petitioner for the time he had already served.

The bench asked the lawyer to respond to the issues raised by the AAG, and instructed him to come prepared for the next hearing.

The court then adjourned the hearing in the instant case and other identical petitions as well.