ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that the special judge central (Rawalpindi/Islamabad) handed over detained editor Najam Sethi to police custody on a seven-day remand.

Picked on May 8 after his critical speech in New Delhi, Najam Sethi was personally produced before the judge, anti-terrorism court, after conducting medical examination while the investigation was in progress, Attorney General for Pakistan, Chaudhry Mohammad Farooq told the bench hearing bail petition of Najam Sethi.

Moved by Jugnoo Mohsin, Sethi’s wife, the bail application was being heard by bench comprising Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Justice Mamoon Kazi and Justice Chaudhry Mohammad Farooq.

It seems that the case of the prosecution was itself demolished by the court, legal experts commented, specially when Justice Mamoon Kazi remarked that the natural inference one could draw after Sethi’s transfer of custody would be that apparently the ISI has nothing against him and there was no report against him by the ISI, though he was kept in detention for almost a month.

However, the attorney general disputed that nothing has been found, agitating that inferences should not he drawn supporting the alleged enemies of the country.

The legal experts also believe that Sethi’s case also proved to be a test case for the judiciary itself.

Justice Chaudhry Mohammad Arif remarked that the case of Sardar Mengal referred to, by the AG was registered after a formal complaint was lodged by the government, which was also a requirement in such cases.

Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui during the proceedings repeatedly asked the AG to satisfy the court how the machinery of the police under the CrPC could be set in without proper complaint by the government.

At the end of the proceedings the AG on the instructions of the bench assured to make arrangements so that family could meet Sethi. The federation also submitted its reply against the bail petition of Jugnoo Mohsin.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha, the counsel of Jugnoo Mohsin, while reading the copy of the FIR insisted that there has been no ground against Sethi for filing complaint, besides the FIR merits to be ignored therefore the proceedings against Sethi were void.

Dr. Ranjha said that the FIR in fact was not an FIR as the relevant laws did not recognise registration of the case in the offences under which Sethi has been booked. Therefore there was no justification for keeping the detainee in detention, he added.

By reading Sections 123-A and 123-B, he said, these laws attract when someone condemns creation of state or advocates about abolishing its sovereignty or abuses the country by virtue of its partition.

These offences were non-cognizable and they have to seek instructions from the government but they were in such a hurry that they had to make a statement Monday night to make the case cognizable.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha also insisted that under the law the MNA has no power to lodge such an FIR.

The FIR was lodged on May 29 only because they could find only one blank daily register (Rosnamcha) on that date. Dr. Ranjha stated that these cases were triable by regular sessions courts and it was only a session judge who, on a complaint, orders for investigation and decides whether the case was cognizable or not.

The counsel also dealt with section 13 in detail and said that there was no FIR in the file right now and Sethi’s production before the anti-terrorism court was in utter violation of law.

During the proceedings, the AG while referring to the high court’s order in the Jugnoo Mohsin case, mentioned that the case has taken different turns. But Justice Mamoon Kazi remarked that the case took different turns because proper material was not produced before the high court due to which it proceeded on an assumption hat the case has to be tried by the military court.

The AG read out the letter sent to the foreign secretary by the high commissioner in New Delhi on April 13 and also showed clippings of Indian media which suggested that Najam Sethi through his speech made an impression that there was no rule of law and judiciary in Pakistan.

When the AG stated that Sethi even criticised the judiciary, the judge remarked that we read daily columns in newspapers criticising the judiciary. “Even the judges say that judiciary was not working properly, what to talk of other people. But the judges should always do the right thing,” he remarked.

The AG also quoted an article titled “Who is Najam Sethi” from The News but Justice Kazi asked whether the article has any relevance with the present case.

The AG replied that it was a supporting material, which was always important as Sethi was also involved in the Hyderabad conspiracy case.

But Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui observed that this fact would not help him because the man accused of espionage became a cabinet minister and he was never prosecuted though there were allegations against him since 1960.

The judge asked whether the sections mentioned in the FIR attract cognizance or not because if it was non-cognizable, then arrest could not be made without warrants.

However the AG stated that two sections were non-cognizable while the other two were cognizable and arrest could be made without warrants.

Meanwhile in its reply, the federation requested the court to dismiss Jugnoo Mohsin’s petition in the interest of justice because the detention of Sethi was in accordance with the law.

The reply stated that there were serious allegations against Sethi about his anti-state activities, which was reflected from chain of circumstances, including his speech in India on April 30, 1999.

Prior to this, Sethi was also involved in a sedition trial known as “Hyderabad trial”, it added. Therefore in the backdrop of his activities spread over two years, the allegations of mala fide was not only unfounded but an endeavour to smoke screen his culpability and incriminate conduct.

In discharging its duties, the ISI was vested with the jurisdiction to act under the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) 1952.

To ensure the security of Pakistan from hostile internal activities or external aggression, this organisation has the authority to initiate action under the PAA in the larger interest of the nation and the country, the reply said.

Therefore the arrest and detention of Sethi by the ISI was according to the law and the same was in the extreme national interest of the country, it said.

The reply stated that the communication received from the high commission of Pakistan In India and other circumstances connected, including his previous alleged involvement in the anti-state/anti-national activities for which he was tried by Hyderabad Tribunal, created the suspicion and doubt about his conduct and actions.

Source: The News

Date:6/2/1999