BR100 Increased By (0.01%)
BR30 Increased By (0.53%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.28%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.29%)
AGHA 6.38 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.95%)
BECO 4.35 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.87%)
BML 62.55 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.16%)
BOP 31.39 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.51%)
CNERGY 11.73 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.21%)
CSIL 5.91 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (3.32%)
FCCL 61.71 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.28%)
FFL 14.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.53%)
FNEL 1.24 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.81%)
KEL 6.32 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.96%)
KOSM 5.90 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (6.12%)
LOTCHEM 24.69 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.04%)
MLCF 103.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.14%)
NBP 173.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.96 (-1.12%)
NCPL 51.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-1.78%)
NPL 54.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.17%)
OGDC 315.87 Increased By ▲ 2.48 (0.79%)
PACE 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.65%)
PAEL 35.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.61%)
PIBTL 13.66 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.41%)
PPL 226.07 Increased By ▲ 4.26 (1.92%)
PRL 80.28 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (1.52%)
PTC 46.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.45%)
SSGC 23.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.21%)
TBL 9.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.75%)
TELE 7.55 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.17%)
TPL 24.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-2.27%)
TPLP 12.99 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (3.84%)
TREET 25.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-1.03%)
TRG 53.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.21%)

ISLAMABAD: A local court has acquitted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders, including party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan, citing insufficient evidence and vague allegations in the two cases filed against them.

Judicial Magistrate Shahzad Khan issued a detailed judgment regarding the acquittal of PTI leaders, Aamir Mughal, Ali Bukhari, Shoaib Shaheen, Malik Rafique, and others from two cases registered under sections, 159, 188, 186,353 under PPC and another case under Sections 506II,290,341, 188,159,353,186 under PPC at Karachi Company police station, stating that the prosecution failed to present “cogent, strong, and hard evidence” necessary for conviction. The court dismissed the charges, calling the continuation of the trial a “sheer waste of court[’s] time.”

The judgment highlighted that it is evident that the case against the petitioners and other accused individuals is fraught with serious legal and factual deficiencies. The allegations are vague and lack specificity, the prosecution has failed to establish individual roles or a common objective, and no incriminating evidence has been recovered from the accused persons/petitioners, it says.

It says these shortcomings collectively weaken the prosecution’s case and raise significant doubts about the validity of the charges. “Without further evidence or clarification, the case appears to be built on shaky foundations, and the accused cannot be held liable for the alleged offenses based on the current record”, it says, adding that as such, the charges against the petitioners and other accused individuals may well be dismissed for lack of merit.

It says that the record reflects that general allegations are levelled in the first information report (FIR) and no specific role has been attributed to the present accused persons/petitioners. The record further shows that accused persons/petitioners, along with approximately 150 people, made a procession in which they made slogans against the state and also violated the lawful order of the authority; resultantly a case was registered, it says.

The judgment says a critical issue is that the allegations are entirely general, targeting a large group of around 150 individuals without attributing any specific role, act, or overt criminal intent to the accused petitioners.

This violates a fundamental principle of criminal law that accusations must be clear, specific, and individually attributable to sustain a prosecution, it says.

It says that shockingly, despite the alleged involvement of 150 people, only two witnesses were cited in the challan, and there is no CCTV footage, NADRA facial recognition data, or other forensic evidence to connect the petitioners to the offence. Additionally, the absence of modern investigative techniques (CCTV, biometric verification) violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, it says.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.