ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its displeasure over the use of language in written statements about a compromise reached between the accused and legal heirs of those persons killed in Drag race held in Rawalpindi on December 5.

A three-member bench of supreme court comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani, directed the counsels for accused, to submit fresh statements under Section 345 of CRPC.

The bench in its order said that legal heirs of deceased had no authority to make statements about the guilt or crime.

The bench also directed the trial court to continue its proceedings without being influenced by this Court’s observations.

At the outset of proceedings, when the bench was told by Hamid Khan, counsel for accused Ali Riaz chief executive of Bahria Town, that a compromise had been reached between parties and the heirs had exonerated the accused of their guilt, the Chief Justice objected to the use of language in the statements saying that reaching a compromise meant admission of guilt.

He also raised question over the trial Court judge’s conduct for accepting such a statement.

He said “We will have to see compromise which should come upto our satisfaction. If our Judge has observed such things, we will bring him to task. That is the reason that complaints are raised as to why the judges do not apply their conscience.”

“How the Additional Sessions Judge has accepted it “We will pass a judicial order and would take up the matter with the Chief Justice of High Court to look into it,” he added.

He further said if such things were accepted, it would become precedents and people would start lying before the Supreme Court.

“We will not allow it as such issues relates to prestige of the Supreme Court,” he added.

The Chief Justice told Advocate General Punjab Khawja Haris that these people (heirs) should be thankful to the Court that took notice otherwise it was being hushed up.

“Look at the former IG Police Islamabad (Kaleem Imam) who was trying to secure illegal gains for the accused,” he added. Advocate General also objected to language of statement.