KARACHI: The police have declared the FIR lodged against PML-N leader Safdar Awan for violating the sanctity of Quaid-e-Azam’s mausoleum, as “fake in the charge sheet” submitted to a local court on Monday.
The investigation report concluded that neither the complainant, Waqas Khan, nephew of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Haleem Adil Sheikh, joined the investigation nor the veracity of his claims were established since the probe never found Khan there.
Awan, who is the husband of the PML-N vice-president Maryam Nawaz, was taken into custody by police on the morning of October 19 from the Avari Hotel where the couple was staying during their visit to Karachi for the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s public gathering in the city on the preceding day.
Hours later, he was granted bail by the court against a surety of Rs100,000 as the Sindh government alleged that the federal government forced the provincial police to make the arrest to create rifts in the PDM, which includes PPP and the PML-N on the forefront.
According to the FIR, Awan, his wife along with their cohorts, violated the sanctity of the mausoleum of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah by creating a ruckus inside and chanted fiery slogans. He added that they also intimidated people. Earlier, the prosecution had pointed out discrepancies in the previous charge-sheet, noting that the investigation officer neglected to record statements of independent witnesses available on the spot where the alleged offence took place.
It said that the IO failed to get required approval from his senior officers before submitting the charge sheet and did not attach the complaint moved by the administration officer of the mausoleum board nor recorded his statement.
However, the prosecution approved of the new charge sheet. It wrote that the offences shall be tried under the Quaid-e-Azam’s Mazar (Protection and Maintenance) Ordinance, if the same complaint is routed through the concerned SHO on the application of the mausoleum’s administrator. On the applicability of the Pakistan Penal Code, it said “we are of firm opinion that despite efforts of the IO, the complainant failed to join the investigation and preparation of the memo of site inspection. Also the absence of the complainant on the date and time is established with the CCTV footages and CDR collected by the IO.” The district public prosecutor, Zainab Hamirani, and deputy public prosecutor Arif Sitai wrote that they agreed with the IO that there was no evidence available to constitute offences and he has rightly recommended the report to be designated as B (false) class.
