The Islamabad High Court (IHC) adjourned on Friday the hearing of a case pertaining to former prime minister’s Imran Khan’s conviction in the Toshakhana case.
The hearing has been adjourned till August 28 (Monday).
On Thursday, both the IHC and Supreme Court had adjourned the hearing till Friday (today).
During the hearing on Thursday, Sardar Latif Khosa, Salman Akram Raja, and Barrister Gohar Ali Khan had argued against the appeal of Imran before the IHC. They raised issues of procedural lapse, limitation, and that the defence counsel was not provided to make final arguments before the final order of the trial court.
In his petitions, Imran expressed dissatisfaction over the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West) order of August 5, whereby, he was convicted under Article 174 of the Election Act, 2017.
IHC to resume hearing of IK’s plea against conviction in Toshakhana case today
Khosa said under the Elections Act, 2017, the matter is placed before the magistrate, who after examining the case file decides whether to send it to the Sessions Judge or not.
He said according to the Act, 120 days have been prescribed to raise objections on the statement of assets and liabilities of MNAs filed before the Election Commission annually of previous years. He said Imran filed wealth statement from 2018 to 2020, but the objections were raised in 2023.
He said the trial court’s judgment is flawed.
ECP urges IHC not to decide IK’s petition without hearing state
On Thursday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) asked the IHC not to decide Imran’s petition for suspension of trial court judgment and grant of bail without hearing the state.
Amjad Pervaiz, representing the ECP, argued that the accused is in the custody of the State, therefore, the petitioner should have made the State as respondent, which they have not done, while the High Court also has not issued notice to the State. He urged the court not to decide the appeal without hearing the State.
He referred to numerous judgments of the apex court, which say that the State should be made a party in the appeal which is filed by the accused against his conviction. He said there are two types of appeals – one, against the acquittal, in which, a notice to the State is not necessary. However, in the appeal to set aside the conviction, the State must be heard by a division bench of the high court as per the law.
Background
On August 5, Imran was arrested from his Lahore residence shortly after a district and sessions court in the federal capital found him guilty in the Toshakhana case and sentenced him to three years in prison. He is currently being kept in Attock Jail.
In his petitions, Imran expressed dissatisfaction over the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West) order of August 5, whereby, he was convicted under Article 174 of the Election Act, 2017.
He added that the said impugned order was not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
The petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement had been passed “with a pre-disposed mind” of the learned trial judge to convict and sentence the appellant irrespective of the merits of the case. They stated that the impugned judgement had been passed without providing proper or adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Comments
Comments are closed.