Sunday February 25, 2024

SHC seeks CBC’s comments on plea against ban on animal riding on beach

December 05, 2022

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has recently directed the Cantonment Board Clifton (CBC) and others to file comments on a petition against the ban on camel and horse riding in the Clifton and Sea view areas.

The petitioner, Ava Ardeshir Cowasjee, had submitted in the petition that the cantonment board’s decision with regard to ban on the entry of horse and camel riders in the Sea View area was illegal and without any jurisdiction.

She submitted that seashore and beach were owned by the Sindh government and it could be regulated by the cantonment board and defence housing authority. She said that the respondents’ decision was nothing more than an exercise to extort money from such persons who were dependent for their livelihood on horse and camel riding for picnickers.

She said that such activities were restricted only on the Clifton beach but were permitted on Sandspit, Hawke’s Bay and other beaches and such arbitrary orders were in violation of public trust doctrine.

The petitioner submitted that the picnickers used to enjoy camel and horse riding on the beach and by imposing a ban on such activities, they were deprived of their right to have recreational activities.

The high court was requested to declare the ban on the entrance of animals at the Clifton and Sea View beach illegal and restrain the respondents from implementing such a ban. A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Nadeem Akhtar directed the cantonment board’s counsel to file comments on the petition on the next date of hearing.

Wife murder case

The SHC also recently set aside the life imprisonment sentence of a man who had been convicted by a trial court for murdering his wife. Appellant Israr Ahmed was sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions court West for murdering his wife Seema in the Orangi Town area.

According to the prosecution, the appellant’s wife was found lying dead in a rented house, after which he was booked for her murder on the request of his in-laws. A counsel for the appellant submitted that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. The high court was told that there was no evidence that proved the murder charges on him.

A deputy prosecutor general supported the trial court order and submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. A single bench of the high court headed by Justice Irshad Ali Shah after hearing the arguments and perusal of evidence observed that no one had actually seen the appellant committing the murder of his wife, due to which it would be hard to maintain conviction against the appellant on the basis of evidence.

The bench observed that the investigation officer who had conducted the initial investigation of the case had not been examined by the prosecution for the reason that he had been dismissed from the service.

The high court observed that the dismissal of an employee from the service may not be a sufficient reason for his non-examination in a murder case and in that way, the appellant had been prejudiced in his defence seriously.

The SHC observed that the investigation officer who had apprehended the appellant deposed that he had admitted his guilt and pointed out the place of the incident. The high court observed that such an admission was inadmissible as evidence in terms of the Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and could not be used against him.

The high court observed that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellant and set aside the trial court order. The SHC ordered release of the appellant if he was not required in other cases.