ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Monday, reserved its verdict in an appeal of Imran Khan, chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against his conviction in Toshakhana criminal case.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri on Monday heard Imran Khan’s petition. The bench reserved the judgment, which it will announce today (Tuesday) 11am.

During the hearing, the ECP lawyer, Amjad Pervez, urged the bench to issue a notice to the State in the case, adding it is mandatory under the law. When Pervez concluded his arguments, Sardar Latif Khosa, representing Imran Khan said he did not have any objection to the ECP lawyer’s plea but demanded that it “should not be done” at this stage.

The ECP lawyer also referred to various laws and past court verdicts, including Indian National Congress’ Rahul Gandhi’s plea seeking suspension of his two-year sentence, which the lawyer said was rejected.

He argued that he was not opposing the appeal to suspend the sentence based on a short sentence. He also argued, “I am only saying that the appeal cannot be proceeded without issuing a notice to the State.”

When the ECP lawyer informed the court that the state was not made a party in Imran’s plea, the chief justice noted that the case was related to a “private complaint” filed by the ECP against the PTI chief. He added that no mention of the state appeared in the trial court. Then, he asked why it is necessary to make it a respondent here.

He further said that a public prosecutor is not present during the hearing of cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). At this, Pervez responded that the NAB’s own prosecutors are present whose arguments are heard.

The ECP lawyer argued that there was no mention of a public prosecutor in the NAB laws and instead, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mentions it. He again urged the court to issue a notice to the state to make it a respondent in the case, saying, “The word ‘complainant’ is not there at all in the law. The word ‘state’ is used.”

In his arguments on the matter of the sessions’ court holding a direct hearing of the Toshakhana case, Pervez said the trial proceedings of any crime committed under the Pakistan Penal Code have to be conducted under the CrPC. He added that no complaint pertaining to corruption and corrupt practices was heard by a judicial magistrate in the past 50 years or so, adding a magistrate does not even have the authority to pass an order on any complaint. A magistrate can only pass an order on a complaint that falls within his jurisdiction.

The IHC chief justice then asked him that if you are saying that even if there was a mistake in filing the complaint, it will not have an effect on the trial? The ECP lawyer replied that yes, this is my point that the trial has to be held by a court, whether it has been filed under a magistrate or directly. This is not even a matter of court jurisdiction.

He further said that they are saying that the complaint did not come to the sessions’ court after being heard by the magistrate but the jurisdiction is still the sessions’ courts.

At this point, Pervez requested the court to grant a 15-minute break in the hearing so he could take medicine, which the IHC allowed.

When the hearing resumed, the ECP counsel mentioned that the defence counsel had objected to the “formal authorisation of the complaint” as according to him, the complaint was not maintainable without it. He then read out aloud the ECP’s permission notice, which he said was given after the commission’s verdict.

The IHC chief justice observed, “The election commission said in its verdict that the office shall do whatever was necessary. It did not issue directives to any individual.” Justice Farooq asked why the ECP’s secretary had to file a complaint when he had not been issued any directives. At this, Pervez replied that the secretary had written in the authorisation that the complaint was “being filed in view of the ECP’s verdict”.

Justice Farooq directed him to conclude his arguments within five to 10 minutes. Here, the ECP lawyer concluded his arguments. Following this, Khosa, Imran’s lawyer, said, “I would not wish to add anything to these arguments. I am grateful to Amjad Pervez that he completed his arguments.”

Later, the IHC bench reserved its verdict on the PTI chief’s plea to suspend his three-year jail term.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023