KARACHI: A Karachi city court on Wednesday rejected a plea by Gul Plaza president Tanveer Pastan and other co-accused seeking the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
The court observed that authorities constitute JITs exclusively for terrorism cases. The hearing continued in the Gul Plaza fire case as Pastan and other accused appeared before the bench.
Defence Raises Concerns Over Investigation
Defence counsel Javed Mir argued that the new investigating officer (IO) had failed to properly investigate the role of government institutions.
He said previous court orders had directed authorities to include government institutions in the probe. However, according to Mir, the new IO attempted to shield those organisations.
The lawyer pointed out that the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) had taken no action against the builder. He also said authorities had given a clean chit to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC), SBCA and Fire Brigade.
Mir further noted that the IO had failed to record the statement of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) South.
Defence Questions Charges Against Management
Mir told the court that the fire started on the ground floor. Despite this, authorities named a father and son as accused, although the father was not even present at the scene.
He said around 5,000 people managed to evacuate the building. However, several people died in the fire because of what he described as severe negligence and incompetence by government institutions.
“During the emergency, the fire brigade did not even have water, but the IO completely ignored this point,” Mir said.
He added that trapped victims cried for help for an hour and a half while government agencies failed to respond effectively.
IO Gives Different Account
The investigating officer presented a different account before the court.
He said the ground floor had 16 exit doors, which helped prevent fatalities on that level. He also alleged that the building management had installed fixed steel windows that blocked escape routes.
Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Amir Wirck told the court that Civil Defence had joined the investigation. He said investigators had recorded statements from two Civil Defence officers.
Wirck argued that the building management was responsible for safety because it collected fees from shopkeepers.
He added that management had claimed no one remained trapped inside. However, victims were later found to have died in the fire.
Dispute Over Rescue Operation
The IO claimed that official teams had broken open doors and windows to rescue people trapped inside the building.
Javed Mir rejected this claim. He said authorities actually broke open the doors and windows the following day.
Mir also argued that the charge sheet, or challan, made it appear that DSP Amir Wirck had decided the matter unilaterally.
He stressed that the investigating officer had failed to investigate even one of the seven points the court had previously highlighted for re-investigation.
When the court asked why government institutions had not been named as accused, Mir said Tanveer Pastan had already brought all relevant facts to the authorities’ attention.
He questioned what crime his client had committed.
Tanveer Pastan Speaks Before Court
Tanveer Pastan also addressed the court.
He said victims remained alive inside the building for two and a half hours after the fire started. He added that five members of his own team died in the blaze, but the challan did not mention them.
Pastan also said a rescue snorkel malfunctioned during the operation. According to him, rescuers could have saved precious lives if the equipment had worked properly.
He said ordinary citizens rescued him from the flames and claimed that he would have died without their help.
Pastan Rejects Allegations
Pastan expressed frustration over being named as an accused despite losing members of his own team.
He also said Rs 7 billion in compensation had been distributed to fire victims on his recommendation.
The court adjourned the hearing until September 18.
