Imran Khan’s Counsel Seeks Dissolution of Trial Court Verdict Over ‘Errors’ in Toshakhana Case
LAHORE MIRROR — The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has started hearing PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s application against his conviction and for its suspension in the Toshakhana criminal case.
A division bench comprised IHC Chief Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri is hearing the case.
Imran Khan’s attorney, Latif Khosa, has formally requested the court to suspend his client’s sentence. Khosa informed the chief justice that they had approached the Supreme Court first to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for the case.
In response, the IHC chief justice advised the lawyer that if any errors were made by a lower court, they should be addressed through due process.
Khosa emphasized that until the issue of jurisdiction is resolved, the proceedings cannot move forward. He outlined three main arguments against his client’s sentence. Firstly, he pointed out that the trial court disregarded an order from the Islamabad High Court. Moreover, he criticized the verdict of the lower court, highlighting several inaccuracies.
According to Khosa, the high court instructed the trial court to reexamine the case’s admissibility, which the trial court judge failed to comply with. Khosa further contended that the complaint lodged by the election commission was not submitted to the correct forum. He asserted that the complaint should have been filed in the magistrate’s court rather than directly to the trial court.
Khosa also contended that the trial court failed to make a definitive ruling on the matter of jurisdiction, even after repeated instances. He clarified that their challenge was not against the trial in the sessions court but rather against the trial court’s direct jurisdiction over the case. Khosa highlighted that, as per proper legal procedure, the magistrate should evaluate the case and subsequently refer it to the sessions court. He argued that the trial court’s decision, fraught with errors, cannot stand.
Khosa implored the court to annul the judgment of the trial court due to its numerous mistakes. Throughout the proceedings, he consistently underscored the trial court judge’s disregard for the orders of the high court. He concluded by stating that the trial court’s decision encroached upon the constitutional rights of the petitioner.
