IK’s plea in Toshakhana case: IHC sets aside sessions court’s order

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has set aside the sessions court’s order dismissing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman’s petition to declare the Toshakhana case as inadmissible.

A single bench of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, on Tuesday, announced the verdict which he had reserved on June 23 in ex-PM’s petition challenging the Toshakhana trial proceedings.

Imran was indicted in the Toshakhana case on May 10, as Additional Sessions Judge (West) had dismissed his objections regarding the admissibility of the case. Later, Khan approached the IHC, which granted a stay on criminal proceedings till June 8. After the hearing resumed last month, Justice Farooq reserved his judgment.

In the verdict, the IHC bench asked the sessions court to consider the PTI chairman’s petition as pending and decide it afresh within seven days from the receipt of this judgment, keeping in view the law in question and the Court’s observations.

The bench noted that the sessions court had left the “issue undecided and dismissed the application of the petitioner with scanty reasons which left the main legal issues undecided or unresolved”.

It added that it would be only proper for the trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties with detailed reasons keeping in view the provisions of Article 10-A of the Constitution.

The bench stated that a challenge has been made to the complaint filed by the ECP, by the petitioner, on two scores; first, that ECP has initiated the matter without authorization and second, the complaint is time-barred, as it has been filed after a period of 120 days of the submission of the statement(s) of assets and liabilities.

Justice Aamer said that the examination of issues, on the basis of arguments made before this Court, clearly shows that the same have not been addressed by the trial court and “have been brushed aside and/or dealt with in a very cursory and shoddy manner.”

“The examination of the impugned order shows that issues have not been dealt with in a proper manner, as it should have been and in such a situation, to substitute the findings, this Court would be supplementing the findings which would be inappropriate exercise of the jurisdiction as detailed findings ought to have been given in a proper manner in order for this Court to examine the same in supervisory jurisdiction whether legal issues have been dealt with rightly,” said the verdict.

It added, “The Court, in its exercise of jurisdiction, has the power to do

complete justice and should avoid supplementing the findings.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023