Head of Prosecution Team Barrister
The three-member bench, headed by Justice
At the outset of hearing, Musharraf’s counsel Dr.
He concluded his arguments by saying that the court has no authority to hear the case against
Responding to the arguments, Chief Prosecutor
He said that there was not a single word against high treason in the Army Act 1952, so that it was never mentioned in the any schedule of law and the said Act was for a specific area and for specific time. For that reason, courts did not endorse the law, he added.
He said that the reference of law which courts have termed unconstitutional, was contempt of court.
During his arguments Dr.
The Special Court was established under Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act 1976.
He said Army Act was applicable on an army man breaching the Constitution.
Ranjha also sought the transfer of Musharraf’s case to a military court, citing provisions of the Army Act.
He said that sections relating to high treason were included in the Army Act 1952 and added that under Article 245, the Army Act would even apply to civilians, living in areas where the army had been summoned.
He contended that the special court cannot conduct a trial of either a person who is in uniform or retired, adding that it is mandatory in law that military personal could only be court martialled under the Army Act if they commit any offence.
Later, the court adjourned hearing for Wednesday (
Most Popular Stories
- High-Tech Home Theaters Undergoing a Revolution
- Amazon Prime Grabs Classic HBO TV Series
- Wellness Programs Grow More Popular With Employers
- Procter & Gamble Income Up on Cost Cutting
- Sales of New Homes Fell 14.5 Percent in March
- Obama Opens Japan Trip with Sushi Stop
- #myNYPD Twitter Campaign Backfires for NYPD
- Google, SunPower Team Up on Solar Power
- FedEx Sued Over Deadly California Bus Crash
- Boeing Flying High With Strong First Quarter