@Farah Sohail, two different tracks, Justice Ejaz is clueless.
After the statement was read, Justice Ejaz Afzal asserted that if the magistrate in front of whom the statement was read was unable to verify its authenticity, it would be no more than a piece of paper.
Hamid concurred, saying, "the statement is nothing more than a piece of paper."
At this Justice Asif Saeed Khosa intervened, saying the statement is not just a piece of paper but a part of evidence on which no action has been taken.
Justice Afzal wondered how the top court could have given such a verdict in a writ petition. Justice Khosa replied that the NAB reference had been discarded because the investigation was not conducted according to the law.
He added that the court had disposed of the case on the basis of technicalities.
In 1997, the case against Dar was heard by a two-judge bench in an intra-court appeal which is ordinarily heard by a five-member bench, Justice Khosa remarked.
@PakSword technicalities again, following argument speaks volume.
The 1992 protection law keeps the court from hearing a case in which the defendant has already been acquitted, Hamid replied.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1311045/pa...hudaibiya-reference-record-on-dars-confession