An anti-corruption court has dismissed an application against alleged unlawful detention of Zameer Abbasi, former project director of the Karachi Mobility Project (KMP).
Abbasi, along with others, has been booked by Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) over alleged misuse of authority and advance payment of Rs8.5 billion to contractors of the Yellow Line BRT project in violation of the contract that caused significant financial losses to the Sindh government.
Advocate Kashif Khan Tanoli filed the application on behalf of Abbasi under Article 10 of the Constitution, stating that his client was presently under the “unlawful custody and control” of Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) officials.
The judge observed that it was a settled principle of law that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a court is under a legal obligation to satisfy the court regarding the maintainability and merits of the relief sought. Furthermore, he added, neither the accused was produced before this court nor has any material been placed on record by any competent authority to establish the nature, legality, or continuance of the alleged custody.
“In the absence of the accused before the Court, and there being no authorization, affidavit, vakalatnama, or any legally recognizable material empowering the applicant to invoke constitutional safeguards on behalf of the accused in the present proceedings, the maintainability of the application itself becomes highly questionable,” the judge said.
“It is cardinal principle of law that before granting any relief, the court must first satisfy itself regarding the maintainability of the proceedings against the existence of jurisdiction.” “The Hon’ble Superior Court have consistently held that constitutional jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction to be exercised strictly in accordance with the constitution and law and cannot be invoked indirectly before a forum not vested with such powers.”
“It is also settled law that constitutional remedies are to be sought before the competent constitutional forum and not through miscellaneous applications before a criminal court lacking constitutional jurisdiction.”
The judge said that the counsel has failed to point out any provision of law under which this court may assume jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the relief sought through the instant application. “Mere assertion regarding custody of an accused, without supporting material and without production of the detenue does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court,” he added.
