Toshakhana case: Court says complaint was filed by ‘authorised person’

ISLAMABAD: The district and sessions court on Monday ruled that a duly authorised person filed the complaint in Toshakhana case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on behalf of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar issued an 18-page detailed judgment of the Toshakhana case, in which, the court declared the Toshakhana case against Imran Khan maintainable and summoned witnesses for recording their statements during the next hearing to be held on July 12.

The order says that the complaint has been filed on behalf of ECP by a duly authorized person, i.e., DEC Islamabad. Not only the decision of ECP dated October 10, 2022 but also the authority letter issued by the secretary, ECP is a valid authorisation to file a complaint, it says, adding that the question of authorisation is a question of fact and evidence and can be ratified subsequently, during course of proceedings in view of the judgment in case title, Mushtaq Hussain Bokhari —-versus—-The State reported as PLD 1981 Supreme Court 573.

The judgment says that the authority letter referred to in the preceding paragraph is a routine practice. The use of the word authority in the letter itself shows that the competent authority has passed the order for filing a complaint against the accused, it says.

It is appropriate to mention that under Article 129 (e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, there is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, i.e., with due regard to the relevant formalities and within the relevant powers and that a conclusion of excess and irregularities is; therefore, not to be lightly reached.

The order says that it is also an admitted fact that the complaint was not filed as a result of scrutiny conducted by the ECP rather the speaker National Assembly on the reference of a parliamentarian forwarded the same to the Election Commission in which it was held that the accused has been involved in corrupt practices in view of Section 167 of Election. The accused has intentionally and deliberately made false statements and incorrect declarations before the ECP so the question of limitation does not arise.

The order says that it is also appropriate to mention that the alleged fact of corrupt practice and making false statements and incorrect declarations came to surface in the reference made to the ECP and not before.

The detailed judgment says that it is also settled law that limitation is purely a mixed question of law and fact and can also be determined after recording the evidence. Keeping in view the above, it is held that the complaint is not barred by time and therefore, all questions formulated are resolved keeping in view the law laid down in cases referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The result of the above discussion is that the application of the accused is without any substance; hence, dismissed.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023