Imran doesn’t get relief in gifts case

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday did not give immediate relief to former prime minister Imran Khan as it did not stay the proceedings of a trial court hearing a criminal complaint against the PTI chief in a gift repository -- Toshakhana -- case.

When a single bench -- comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq -- resumed hearing the PTI chief’s petition against the trial court’s July 8 order, Imran's counsel Khawaja Haris contended that the trial court passed the order in a hurry.

Islamabad District and Sessions Court (West) Judge Humayun Dilawar on July 8 announced starting criminal proceedings against Imran in the Toshakhana case as he rejected PTI chief’s plea against maintainability of a complaint filed by the polls supervisory authority.

Judge Dilawar issued the order four days after the IHC ordered him to decide the PTI’s application afresh “after hearing the parties with detailed reasons keeping in view the provisions of Article 10-A of the Constitution.” The PTI chief later moved the IHC again seeking to stay the trial court’s proceedings.

Haris on Wednesday told the court that this was the second round of litigation in the IHC. He said in the first round, the IHC court on July 4 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and the matter was remanded to the trial court for decision afresh within seven days.

He said the judgment of the court was communicated to the trial court on July 5.

“As per the IHC order, the trial court had one week--till July 12--to decide the matter. However, the trial court passed an order on July 8 in haste despite the fact that we had requested the court to adjourn the case for a couple of days in view of my inability to argue the matter due to personal reasons,” he said.

He contended that the trial court did not hear the petitioner properly. He said that while remanding the issue to the trial court, the IHC had asked eight questions, which have not been answered separately.

The PTI chief’s counsel said an application under Section 190(2) of the Elections Act, 2017 has been filed regarding delegation to be made as provided in Section 6 of the act.

He said the trial court failed to take into account the effect of Section 165 of the Elections Act, 2017.

Haris contended that generally, when a higher court is not satisfied with an order passed by a trial court, it remands the matter to a different court as per the Supreme Court’s observation in a case reported as Allah Ditta Vs the State.

The counsel also requested the court to stay the proceedings to the trail court. The IHC, however, issued notices to the respondent as it adjourned till next week.

The court also issued notices on another application seeking transfer of a number of cases filed against the PTI chief and his wife from one trial court to another.