ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Monday, reserved its verdict in former chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s petition seeking suspension of the trial court’s verdict in the Toshakhana case.
A division bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri conducted a hearing of the petition and reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments of Amjad Pervez advocate representing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and Sardar Latif Khosa, the counsel for Imran Khan.
During the hearing, Khosa presented his arguments and informed the bench highlighting his inability to attend a hearing at Adiala jail. He said that he was refused to attend the hearing when he went to Adiala jail. He said he has the right to be present on behalf of his client.
At this, Justice Aamer asked if he contacted the judge of the court concerned in this matter. Khosa said that he, including his staff, were stopped and ridiculed.
The IHC chief justice said that he would inform the registrar about this matter. Then, the ECP’s lawyer raised an objection on the same plea filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC), saying that they had learned about the petition challenging the ECP’s disqualification notification.
Parvez said that the LHC’s single bench had forwarded the matter to the five-member after hearing it. He requested that this petition was not admissible in this court.
He added that an appeal was filed on August 8 to suspend the trial in the Toshakhana case and the verdict was announced on August 28 while one month and eight days after the verdict, a separate petition for suspension of the verdict was filed.In this matter, the former PTI chairman moved the petition through his counsel Sardar Latif Khosa advocate and cited the District Election Commission, Islamabad as respondent.
In the petition, he prayed to the court that instant application may be allowed and while exercising the powers under Section 561-4 C.P.C. the omission of not recording the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the suspension of impugned judgment dated 05.08.2023 may be rectified and “in consequence whereof, operation of impugned judgment dated 05.08.2823 may very graciously be ordered to be suspended/stayed till final decision of the appeal in the interest of justice.”
He also prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to array/implead “The State” as party/Respondent No 2 in the memo of appeal and he may also be allowed to file amended memo of appeal accordingly.
In the plea, the counsel contended that they had requested the IHC to completely suspend the trial court’s verdict that had convicted his client in the Toshakhana case. However, he added that the IHC in its August 28 verdict only suspended the sentence of the PTI chief and not the trial court’s order.
He contended, “That it is settled principle of law that inherent powers of High Court are very wide and undefinable. High Court can make all such orders to do real and substantial justice and it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 561-A CrPC as the omission in not recording the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant at the bar praying for suspension of the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 and subsequent non-mentioning of the same in the order dated 28.08.2023 is an omission floating on the face of the order.”
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023