Davis`s release: Judge`s action challenged
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was requested on Thursday to declare that the additional district and sessions judge, who freed CIA contractor Raymond Davis, had acted without jurisdiction because the matter did not fall within his domain.
A petition, filed by Advocate Rai Mohammad Nawaz Kharal on behalf of Molvi Iqbal Haider, sought a declaration from the apex court that the offence of killing two Pakistanis in broad daylight on a crowded Lahore street was not triable by a district and sessions court because such offences fell under the jurisdiction of anti-terrorism courts.
“Therefore, the decision of the Lahore sessions court to release Raymond Davis after a compromise agreement is illegal, unconstitutional, void and without any legal sanctity,” the petitioner contended.
After remaining more than one-and-a-half months in detention Davis was released and quickly flown out of Pakistan on Wednesday after heirs of the two youths he had shot dead on Jan 27 accepted blood money under diyat laws.
The petitioner accused the federal government, Punjab prosecutor-general and the station house officer of Lytton police of having failed to fulfil their statutory duties that had led to Davis`s release.
“The offences occurred on Jan 27 in Lahore fall under sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, but the sessions court deliberately, intentionally and in connivance with the respondents refrained to settle a basic question whether it was competent to entertain the Davis case or to transfer the matter to an anti-terrorism court,” the petitioner said, adding that the sessions court had ordered the release of the American citizen in disregard of sovereignty, integrity and solidarity of the state and dignity of the citizens of Pakistan.
He said that Davis had committed offences which were non-compoundable and in case of waiver or compounding of the offences, the conditions should have been considered by the trial court, but the sessions court judge ignored and avoided considering relevant laws and independence of judiciary.