ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, Wednesday, approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against his indictment in the cypher case.
In his petition, the PTI chairman urged the IHC to declare the exercise of framing charges against him as “illegal and unlawful”.
He moved the court through his lawyer, Salman Safdar advocate and cited the state through the Attorney General’s office and secretary Ministry of Interior as respondents.
The counsel stated the petitioner was quite aggrieved with the mode and manner of framing of charges as well as the proceedings and the trial under the Official Secrets Act. He added the trial was clearly progressing, violating and compromising settled principles of “criminal law” resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.
He contended that the judge in this case, in “sheer haste, compromising fair trial and procedure, proceeded to frame charges against the accused despite serious objections and pendency of applications filed before the court …”.
The counsel maintained that there was a “visible haste” apparent in the actions of the judge. He further said there seemed to be a clear rush and haste on the part of learned trial judge to hurriedly frame charges and conclude trial. “This contention holds appeal, especially in light of the fact that challan has only recently been submitted in court, and there is no direction for its early conclusion or for conducting day-to-day hearing by any superior court.”
He continued that the special court had framed charges under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, which was in “blatant and brazen violation of the law”. He also said Imran’s “secret arrest” followed by “secret remand” and the haste in indicting him were “clearly indicative of erroneous approach and understanding of practice and procedure whilst adjudicating on the cipher trial.”
Salman added that the judge had committed a “gross illegality” by framing charges in the absence of “main documentary evidence”. He said the exercise of framing charges would be “pointless and futile when the nucleus of the prosecution case, cipher telegram, is not part of the challan”.
He argued that the charges could be framed after seven days of distribution of challan copies and the trial court did not fulfil legal requirements in this regard.
Therefore, he prayed to the IHC to declare the “hasty exercise” of framing of charges to be “illegal, unlawful and against the settled principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
He further requested the court to declare the exercise in violation of Article 4 (due process) and 10-A (right to fair trial) of the Constitution. He continued that it is further prayed that the incurable irregularity be cured with an appropriate direction and evidence may not be recorded on [a] defective charge.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.