KARACHI, April 27: The parents of the toxic industrial waste’s victims have moved the Sindh High Court to annul a district and sessions’ court order on March 26 that acquitted a factory owner and others in a case pertaining to dumping of highly toxic industrial waste in an open area in Site Town, which claimed the lives of two children and caused injuries to 15 others.

A criminal acquittal appeal filed by Advocate Faisal Siddiqui under Section 417 (2-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 on behalf of Khawaj Muhammad, father of deceased child Iftikhar, and Sarwar Ali, father of injured child Shiraz, praying the court to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. They named the state, Farooq Gharib, Mirza Aslam Baig, Sher Khan, Abdul Rehman and Salman as respondents in the appeal.

The appellants maintained that the impugned order was clearly contrary to the law and the facts of this case on the issue of quashment and was also contradictory to the settled law on quashment as laid down by the superior courts.

The appellants said that a bare reading of the impugned order clearly showed that it was based on complete ignorance of the facts of the case, as the trial judge was not even aware of the fact that there were 37 witnesses in the case apart from other witnesses to be called, including Sanaullah Abbasi. Secondly, the trial judge had not even referred to the detailed inquiry report of Mr Abbasi and the evidence on which it was based.

They submitted that the impugned judgment had misrepresented that six adjournments were sought on behalf of the witnesses; actually only three adjournments were sought.

The appellants said the trial judge had wrongly stated that other witnesses were not produced or were called absent. In fact no opportunity was given or summons issued to produce the other witnesses while the deciding officer has also wrongly held that the private counsel for the appellants assisted and argued in relation to the quashment application.

The judge was also not aware of the fact that the owners of the subject plots were also the accused, while the quashment application was filed by only two accused persons namely Farooq Gharib and Mirza Aslam Baig, whereas the other three accused persons had filed no quashment application. However, the deciding officer had acquitted all the accused persons, the appellants maintained.

They submitted that the entire impugned order was based on misrepresentations and fallacious presumptions and, as a consequence, it was completely illegal. The trial court was biased against the appellants as the proceedings before the trial was in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements and to the constant objections of the appellants since the indictment of the accused persons while the order praised the defence counsel that clearly showed his bias, they added.

The appellants further submitted that the trial court through an order on Dec 8, 2007 had exempted Farooq Garib from appearance before the trial court for two months, while the appellants were absent only on three dates of hearing on which their counsel was present and asked for condoning of their absence.

The acquittal plea moved under Since 265-K, CrPC, before the trial court was neither heard nor disposed of for nearly a year and on March 26 the counsel for the appellant informed the trial court that the appellants would be moving a transfer application, but on that very day, the trial court decided to hear the quashment application and acquitted all the accused, they maintained.

The order said that police acted in the wrong direction for its own reasons and took no criminal action against the owners of the plots, but in fact the owners of the plots -- Abdul Rahman and Salman -- were accused in this case and had the possession of the said plots and had blamed Farooq Gharib and Aslam Baig for dumping toxic chemicals. The deciding officer, on the one hand, had identified the owners of the plots as the guilty party in the order and, on the other, had acquitted them, the appellants submitted.They maintained that no case could be quashed on the ground that the public prosecutor had conceded to the quashment, adding that the trial court had wrongly held that there was no medical evidence and details of the victims. In fact, all the evidence was available with the police.