The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday adjourned the hearing for an appeal filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan against his conviction and sentence in the Toshakhana case till tomorrow (Friday), Aaj News reported.
The IHC resumed the hearing on Thursday, the same day the Supreme Court was hearing similar pleas by the PTI chief against the conviction in Toshakhana case.
After the IHC decision today, the Supreme Court also decided to adjourn the hearing till “an indefinite period”.
Prima facie serious defects in trial court’s verdict: CJP
On Wednesday, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said prima facie there were serious defects in the trial court verdict in the Toshakhana reference, and asked the IHC to decide Imran’s appeal by Thursday (today).
The CJP said the court would wait for the IHC’s order on Imran’s appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Toshakhana case before “interfering” in the matter.
The IHC was asked to consider the former prime minister’s contentions about the trial court’s jurisdiction, maintainability of the complaint and transfer of judges etc by today (Thursday), after adjourned the hearing until the same day.
On Thursday, the IHC adjourned the hearing till tomorrow (Friday), while the SC is likely to resume the hearing next week.
On August 5, Imran was arrested from his Lahore residence shortly after a district and sessions court in the federal capital found him guilty in the Toshakhana case and sentenced him to three years in prison. He is currently being kept in Attock Jail.
In his petitions, Imran expressed dissatisfaction over the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West) order of August 5, whereby, he was convicted under Article 174 of the Election Act, 2017.
He added that the said impugned order was not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
The petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement had been passed “with a pre-disposed mind” of the learned trial judge to convict and sentence the appellant irrespective of the merits of the case. They stated that the impugned judgement had been passed without providing proper or adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant.