Thank you CJ Ifiti

[qsaark]

This forum is not a court of law that CJ is innocent until proven guilty.

Really? and who has given you the right to accuse the CJ without having any proof in support of your allegations? If you are so sincere about this whole thing, why don’t you file a petition against the CJ in the SC? Why don’t you write in the news papers and enlighten people about the evil of the CJ? Because you know you can get away with this slander on this forum, but otherwise, you'll be asked to present the proof, which obviously you don’t have.

The proof to show whether CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry is guilty of vindictiveness in his judgments therefore does not lie with me but in his one sided decisions as enumerated in my earlier post. No doubt there is an element of subjectivity in my view of the CJ. I have admitted it as much. I however standby what I believe.

When I said that justice is a grey area, I meant that whether or not a person is guilty in actual fact has no direct relationship with whether it can be proven in a court of law. History is full of instances where the innocents were punished and guilty were let off because it could not be proven without any doubt.

For example ZA Bhutto was sentenced by Pak SC thru a majority verdict and hanged. Majority of the population now consider it to be a judicial murder. Zardari on the other hand is universally known as Mr. 10% but GOP failed to get a single conviction against him in 10 years! Despite the fact that his lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan admitted in an interview with US paper that most charges had some bases.

Also people’s perceptions of what is crime change over time. Evidenced by the fact the Sh. Ibne Timiyya and even Mujadad Alif Sani (Sh. Ahmad of Sirhind) were found guilty and punished in a contemporary court by Islamic Qazis. Would you consider them guilty today?

Your medical example therefore is not valid in this case. I have nothing more to say on this subject.

In the present discussion, it is irrelevant whether history is full of wrong judgments or not. You are accusing CJ for the misconduct without having any proof to support your claims. You are trying to find vindictiveness in his judgments whereas many other don’t find any such thing in his judgment. The judgment itself is subjective solely based on the proofs presented. If the evidence is not strong enough, an accused will and should get benefit of doubt. That is why the blame does not go to the judgment; it goes to the poorly prepared evidence, and the persons and the agencies that were responsible for preparing such evidences to be presented in the court. It is totally mind boggling why you can not understand this basic rule of judicial hearings.

 

[araz]

A very good reply. Al ot of us on this forum are of the opinion that if you have been caught by the Army, then you are guilty. the courts do not see it thisway and want evidence. if you cannot provide the evidence then the court will have no choice but to let the person go. This is the rule of the land and this is what the CJ ids following. In real life it has happened many a times before that people who have been guilty, have gotten off scot free on a technicality. Is it the fault of the law . If you think so the parlianment should act and reframe the law so that these people cannot get away so easily.
I think it is unfair criticizing the CJ not knowing the nature of evidence that was put before him.
Araz

 

[qsaark]

A very good reply. Al ot of us on this forum are of the opinion that if you have been caught by the Army, then you are guilty. the courts do not see it thisway and want evidence. if you cannot provide the evidence then the court will have no choice but to let the person go. This is the rule of the land and this is what the CJ ids following. In real life it has happened many a times before that people who have been guilty, have gotten off scot free on a technicality. Is it the fault of the law . If you think so the parlianment should act and reframe the law so that these people cannot get away so easily.
I think it is unfair criticizing the CJ not knowing the nature of evidence that was put before him.
Araz

Thank God, atlease some one can understand what I am trying to say. Thanks Araz, your reply is like a breeze of fresh air.

 

[mcuk2001]

 

[mcuk2001]

http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20090705/Sub_Images/1100662669-1.gif