A Supreme Court bench has raised questions about the manner in which a district and sessions court in Islamabad held the trial of former prime minister Imran Khan in a gift repository — Toshakhana — case, noting that apparently there are serious defects in the August 5 verdict of the court.
“The trial court delivered the verdict [sentencing the PTI chief to three years in prison] within a single day which was not right. Prima facie there are flaws in the trial court's decision," Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial observed on Wednesday.
The CJP was leading a three-member bench, also comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, which took up Imran Khan’s appeal against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) August 4 order.
The bench admitted the PTI chief’s appeal against the IHC’s August 4 order for hearing and issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The IHC on August 4 held that the trial court’s decision to declare the Toshakhana case admissible was "illegal".
It had ordered the lower court to hear the PTI chief’s plea against maintainability of the case “afresh” but rejected Imran's request to transfer the case to another court.
Interestingly, the trial court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Humayun Dilawar, issued its verdict on August 5, a day after the IHC remanded the matter back to it, sentencing the former premier to three years in prison for making false declarations about his assets to the ECP, the polls supervisory body.
Referring to the IHC order, the trial court had observed that it was dismissing the PTI chief petition against maintainability of the ECP complaint as “no body argued the application filed by the accused questioning maintainability of the complaint”.
The SC bench on Wednesday questioned as to why the trial court was in a hurry to decide the case without recording statements of the witnesses which Imran Khan wanted to present in his defence.
Justice Naqvi noted that the trial court defied the orders of the SC and the IHC.
Earlier, Latif Khosa, counsel of Imran Khan, read the IHC’s August 4 order. Counsel for the ECP, Amjad Pervaiz, admitted that notwithstanding the remand order passed by the IHC on August 4, the final judgment of the trial court failed to decide the same afresh.
“Instead the final judgment reaffirms the trial court’s earlier orders dated May 5 and July 8 which had considered these points. However, the same were set aside by the high court (IHC) through an order dated [August 4] that is impugned before us,” said a written order issued after Wednesday’s hearing.
“In this respect, the final judgment of the trial court dated [August 5], prima facie, defies the direction of remand issued by the high court by relying on its earlier point of view that already stands rejected by the [IHC]. These are serious points of law that deserve consideration,” it added.
The SC bench, however, noted that as Imran Khan has already filed an appeal against the trial court’s August 5 order in the IHC which is going to hear the matter today [August 24], the top court will await the order of the IHC.
“Notwithstanding the legal issues highlighted to us and…regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court and the maintainability of the complaint, the procedural propriety of the trial and compliance with the due process requirements ordained by the Constitution, we consider that the high court is the first court which should hear and decide such matters.
“As the petitioner’s application for suspension of sentence is fixed [listed] for hearing tomorrow [Thursday], it is appropriate that out of respect for the high court we first await its decision,” it said.
The SC bench will resume hearing of the petition today [Thursday] at 2pm after the conclusion of the hearing of Imran Khan’s appeal against his conviction at the IHC.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ