IHC acquits Imran Khan, Shah Mahmood in cipher case

  • IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb announce the verdict
Updated 03 Jun, 2024

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday acquitted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the cipher case, Aaj News reported.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb announced the verdict.

IHC issues stay order against jail trial of Imran Khan in cipher case

Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi were indicted in the cipher case by a special court in January. The special court in the case handed down a 10-year prison sentence to Imran Khan.

The IHC previously ordered a stay order on the in-camera trial in the cipher case, taking up Imran Khan’s plea against the verdict.

In his plea, Imran had disputed his jail trial and the subsequent events, including the structuring of the allegations and the gag order imposed on the media.

Cipher case: IHC halts Imran Khan’s trial till Jan 11

Background

A case was registered against Imran and Qureshi under Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

It is related to the “misuse” of alleged contents of a diplomatic cipher, cited by ex-premier Imran as proof of the attempt to remove his government.

Cipher case: Imran, Qureshi get 10 years in jail

According to the copy of the FIR registered on August 15, consequent upon the conclusion of inquiry No 111/2023 upon the complaint registered in the Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW), FIA, it transpired that former prime minister namely, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, former foreign minister namely, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and their other associates are involved in the communication of information contained in the secret classified document (cipher telegram received from Parep Washington dated March 7, 2022, to secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to the unauthorised persons (i.e., public at large) by twisting the facts to achieve their “ulterior motives” and personal gains in a manner prejudicial to the interests of state security.

Read Comments