MUZAFFARABAD: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has ordered the suspension of a district judge serving as member inspection team of the high court and directed that an inquiry be initiated against him.

`The chief justice of the high court shall immediately suspend Raja Imtiaz Ahmed and submit a copy of the suspension order to this court through the registrar on the same day. An inquiry, to be conducted under the supervision of a high court judge, must be completed and its report submitted to this court within one month,` ordered the full bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Raja Saeed Akram, during the hearing of the case Bank Islami vs Director General Human Rights High Court.

The hearing was also attended by Advocate General Sheikh Masood Iqbal, Mr Ahmed, and other relevant officers.

At the outset, the bench questioned Mr Ahmed and the accompanying officers about case-related matters but found their responses unsatisfactory. It then directed the advocate general to assist the court at the next hearing.

According to case records, Raja Dilawar Khan, accused in a narcotics case under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had his bailpetitionsrejected atalljudiciallevels, including the Supreme Court.

In a written order dated January 19, 2023, the apex court had directed that trial proceedings be concluded and a final decision delivered within six months. It also instructed that a compliance report be submitted to the court through its registrar. The order further stated that if any material surfaced during trial that could benefit the accused, he may reapply for bail before the com-petent court.

However, it later came to the Supreme Court`s notice that within one month of the bail rejection order, Mr Ahmed then serving as special judge of the Anti-Narcotics Court in Haveli acquitted the accused throughan order dated February 16, 2023, under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The accused subsequently fled abroad.

In its observations, the apex court noted that during a prior hearing at the Mirpur bench, Mr Ahmed had been questioned about the acquittal order issued after the Supreme Court`s bail rejection. He had denied issuing such an order. However, upon reviewing the high court record of the appeal pending in the same case, the court found that Mr Ahmed had in fact acquitted the accused a decision currently under appeal before the high court.

The Supreme Court held that Mr Ahmed`s action constituted a flagrant violation of its directives, diminished the court`s authority, and amounted to contempt. His false statement before the apex court was deemed judicial misconduct. Instead of complying with the court`s instructions, Mr Ahmed had acted with undue haste in entertaining the application under Section 265-K CrPC and granting acquittal.

The bench also directed the registrar of the high court to compile and submit a detailed report listing all narcoticsrelated cases decided by Mr Ahmed during his tenures in Muzaffarabad, Pallandri and Haveli, including certified copies of judgements and final outcomes.

In addition, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Mr Ahmed, directing him to explain his false statement and justify his violation of clear Supreme Court orders. The Registrar`s Office was instructed to prepare a separate file for contempt proceedings.