PESHAWAR: The federal government has requested the Peshawar High Court to dismiss the petition of a convicte d Indian national, Hamid Nehal Ansari, seeking inclusion of the period of his preconviction detention in his three-year prison term, insisting it was not maintainable.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Roohul Amin Khan Chamkani was informed through written comments filed by the defence and foreign secretaries that the petitioner was subject to the Pakistan Army Act due to involvement in espionage and anti-state activities and therefore, the jurisdiction of high court was ousted in the case.

The comments submitted by deputy attorney general Manzoor Khan Khalil stated that the field general court martial (FGCM)had awarded the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment reckoned to begin on Dec 17, 2015, the date of conviction, to the Indian national.

The petitioner`s counsel, Qazi Mohammad Anwar, said once his client was convicted and sent to prison, the trial court had no concern with him and that he was entitled to all remissions provided to other prisoners under the law. He said it was the right of his client that he should be given the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the detention period of a convict prior to conviction had to be included in the prison term.

The lawyer said he had so far not received a copy of the comments submitted by the government and that he would submit reply after examining them.

He said the petitioner was taken into custody from Kohat in Nov 2012 and therefore, the three years he had already spent in detention should be counted as his prison term.

The bench adjourned the hearing into the case with the observation that both the parties should submit arguments on the next hearing about the question whether the Prison Rules would be applied to a prisoner once convicted and shifted to a prison or any other special law would be applicable to him.

In the comments, the government said the trial court had duly considered the length of period spent by the petitioner in military custody awaiting finalisation of instant trial, as required under Rule 53 of the Pakistan Army Act.

It claimed that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before Army Court of appeals and the same was rejected.

The government added that under Section 133-B of Pakistan Army Act, the decision of a court of appeals would be final and won`t be called in question before any court or authority.

It said the petition was also not maintainable on the ground that the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under the Army Act had already been avalle d by him. Bureau Report