ISLAMABAD: A local court, on Friday, rejected Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s two different pleas in the Toshakhana case and summoned him on May 10 for framing charges against him.
Additional Sessions judge Humayun Dilawar while announcing his reserved verdict with respect to the applications of the PTI chief, in which, he challenged the jurisdiction and maintainability of the petition, dismissed both the pleas and summoned Khan to appear before it on May 10 for indictment.
The PTI chief’s counsel, Khawaja Haris, while arguing over the maintainability of the Toshakhana case said that the application against the maintainability of the case has been filed under Section 190 of the Election Act.
Khan’s lawyer, while raising questions over the jurisdiction of the court, said that the sessions’ court cannot hear Toshakhana’s case directly.
He also gave references of the different sections of the Election Act during his arguments.
He also read out sections 190 and 193 of the Election Act before the court.
The maintainability and trial of the case are two different things, he said, adding that if a case is filed under section 190 of the Election Act the session court can hear it. “So far neither the trial nor inquiry of Toshakhana case has been started,” he said.
Haris further argued that the sessions’ court has to go through section 190A of the Election Act before hearing the case. The legal procedure for filing the complaint by the District Elections Commissioner is not valid, he said, adding that the complaint will go to the court of the magistrate and then session court.
He said that under section 190 of the Election Act, the complaint be filed by ECP.
The hearing of the Toshakhana case was started by ignoring section 190 of the Election Act, Haris said, adding that in the Toshakhana case the complainant is the District Election Commissioner which is against section 190 of the Election Act.
Khan’s counsel further said that the ECP has jurisdiction to take legal action on corrupt practices.
The ECP has not directed the District Election Commissioner to file a complaint against Imran Khan, he said, adding that Waqas Malik was not District Election Commissioner at the time of filing of the complaint.
Amjad Pervaiz, counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), while arguing before the court, said that the court had issued summon to the accused on September 15, 2022.
If the court thinks that an offence has been committed, it has jurisdiction over the case, he said, adding that as per elections laws this court can hear this case.
He said that session courts have heard the cases related to fake bachelor’s degrees of politicians at the complaint of the ECP.
The Supreme Court had asked the ECP to initiate corrupt practice proceedings against politicians over fake bachelor’s degrees, he said.
The ECP’s counsel said that under the constitution, holding elections and curbing corrupt practices is the job of the ECP.
“No subsidiary legislation can stand in the way when the constitutional obligation is to be discharged,” he said.
Pervaiz said that the PTI chief had deliberately not provided details of assets. The duration of 120 days could not be applied in such a situation, he said, adding that the ECP had issued notices to both parties, heard them, and then the commission announced the decision.
He said that after the corrupt practices Imran Khan should not say 120 days have been passed; do not ask me anything. The allegation against Khan has been levelled under section 173 of the ECP Act, he said.
Khan’s counsel Gohar Khan told the court that can file a complaint within 120 days.
The ECP is an independent and autonomous body, he said, adding that after the passage of 120 days, it comes out of the jurisdiction of the ECP to file a complaint.
The court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, reserved its judgment for some time. Later, the court, while announcing its judgment, rejected Khan’s petitions and summoned him on May 10.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.