, the case will be heard by a two-judge panel made up of Justice Tariq){kind=link}
Imran Khan, a former prime minister who is currently detained in Attock Jail, appealed his conviction in the Toshakhana case before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday.
PTI Chairman moves IHC against Toshakhana case: Tomorrow (Wednesday), the case will be heard by a two-judge panel made up of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
Imran was given a three-year prison sentence by an Islamabad trial court on August 5. Khan was also barred from running in the general elections by the ruling.
Imran lied when he said he received presents from Toshakhana, and those claims turned out to be untrue and imprecise. His dishonesty has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the 30-page court document.
Minutes after Additional District and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar pronounced the decision, the police, who had been waiting for the outcome of the hearing, sprang into action and detained him at his Zaman Park mansion in Lahore.
Imran petitioned the International Human Rights Court (IHC) today, arguing that the trial court’s August 5 verdict was “not sustainable” and “liable to be set aside” and that the case should be dismissed.
“Appeal Contending Bias and Unfair Judgment in Imran Khan’s Case Against Trial Court Verdict”
The Islamabad district election commissioner was identified as the case’s respondent in the plea, a copy of which is available.
The judgement rendered by the trial court judge was deemed to be “tainted with bias, is a nullity in the eyes of the law, and is liable to be set aside,” according to the document.
The Aug. 5 order was given “with the predisposed mind” of the trial court judge to condemn and sentence the appellant “irrespective of the merits of the case,” according to the plea’s explanation of the reasons for its request.
It claimed that the order was made without giving the petitioner a chance to present his case. It also claimed that ADSJ Dilawar had disregarded Khawaja Haris’ arguments as Imran’s attorney in the Toshakhana case because he was late because he was submitting additional applications to the Supreme Court and IHC.
The trial judge, who throughout the proceedings had been exhibiting his extreme bias towards the appellant and his counsel, and constantly using disparaging remarks against them, even in their absence, was bent on carrying out a well-orchestrated scheme, and the impugned judgement was announced despite the fact that before commencement, the appellant’s counsel was very much in court and fully prepared to address arguments.
This was described as “a gross travesty of justice” and a “slap in the face to due process and a fair trial” in the petition.
The judgement from August 5 was further claimed to have been “already written” by the trial court judge, who claimed it took him or her only “30 minutes” to “dictate more than 35 pages” of the judgement.
“Appeal Contending Legal Invalidity and Lack of Evidence in Imran Khan’s Conviction Case”
Additionally, the petition claimed that the decision contravened the IHC’s instructions from August 4, which instructed the lower court to “decide afresh” on the PTI leader’s request regarding the maintainability of the Toshakhana case.
According to the argument, which cited Supreme Court rules, “proceedings held by the learned trial court judge culminating in the appellant’s conviction in the instant case are corum non judice without jurisdiction, thereby rendering the appellant’s conviction and sentence void ab initio nugatory in the eyes of law.”
Additionally, it was brought out that none of the witnesses the ECP gave provided any evidence in the case, and that not even a “iota” of evidence was presented by the prosecution on the presents given to Toshakhana.
“The prosecution has not produced any evidence in any form that the appellant transferred any asset during any of the relevant financial years without reasonable compensation or by revocable transfer,” the statement reads.
The petition then urged the court to declare Imran’s conviction and sentence “illegal and without lawful authority” and to acquit him of the charges in addition to pleading for the court to reverse the trial court’s decision.
Permission granted by PTI lawyers to speak with Imran
Separately, the IHC approved Imran’s lawyers’ request to visit the PTI leader in custody at Attock Jail as the court considered a plea for A-Class amenities for the former premier.
It urged the court to grant Imran permission to routinely meet with his legal team, family, personal physician Dr. Faisal Sultan, and political aides, whose contact information were also provided.
The Punjab jails service provided Imran with B-Class amenities following his incarceration. However, according to his attorneys and the party, the jail administration had forbidden them from meeting the PTI chairman.
Naeem Haider Panjotha, Imran’s spokesperson for legal matters, had finally been given permission to meet with the PTI leader a day earlier. The attorney told reporters that Imran was being held in “distressing conditions” and was given “C-Class jail facilities” in a press conference following the one-hour and 45-minute meeting.
The petition was initially met with objections from the IHC registrar, which PTI attorney Sher Afzal Marwat later overruled.
IHC CJ Aamer Farooq stated at the hearing that the court would issue an order in accordance with the prison regulations. Keep in mind that a decree will be issued to provide the facilities listed in the prison regulations.
The judge then instructed Marwat to give the names of two to three solicitors who could meet with Imran and promised to issue an injunction based on that information.
Case of Toshakhana
The case was brought by parliamentarians from the ruling party and is supported by an ECP criminal complaint.
According to the lawsuit, Imran “deliberately concealed” information on gifts he kept from the Toshaskhana during his tenure as prime minister, including the proceeds from their reported sales. The Toshaskhana is a storage facility for gifts given to government officials by foreign authorities.
Gifts/presents and other similar items received by those to whom these rules apply must be reported to the Cabinet Division, per Toshakhana regulations.
Due of his decision to keep gifts, Imran has encountered numerous legal problems. He was also disqualified by the ECP as a result of the problem.
The ECP came to the conclusion that the former premier had in fact made “false statements and incorrect declarations” about the presents on October 21, 2022.
Imran was declared ineligible according to Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution, according to the watchdog’s order.
“Legal Developments in Imran Khan’s Case: ECP Complaint, Judicial Review, and Trial Verdict”
The ECP then submitted a copy of the complaint to the Islamabad Sessions Court, asking for criminal charges to be brought against Imran for allegedly lying to officials about the gifts he received from foreign dignitaries while serving as prime minister.
Imran was charged in the crime on May 10. However, on July 4, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) halted the proceedings and ordered ADSJ Dilawar to review the case in seven days while taking into consideration the eight legal issues he posed to determine whether the Toshakhana reference could still be maintained.
the ECP’s decision of October 21, 2022, was a valid authorization for any officer of the ECP to file a complaint, and whether the question of authorisation was a question of fact and evidence and could subsequently be ratified during the course of proceedings.
Finally, on July 9, ADSJ Dilawar reviewed the halted proceedings and summoned the witnesses for testimony while ruling that the reference was maintainable.
Last month, a session court had ruled that the ECP reference against the PTI leader may still be maintained. The judgement was then contested in the IHC.
Judge Dilawar had concluded last week that Imran’s defence team had failed to establish the significance of his witnesses. He had cautioned the defence attorney that the court would reserve an order if the arguments weren’t finished.
On August 3, the IHC granted Imran a brief reprieve by requesting that the court reevaluate the jurisdiction and any procedural errors that may have occurred during the ECP’s case filing. But a day later, the trial court found the former premier guilty.