ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has rejected former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s request for the suspension of his sentence and the trial court’s decision in the Toshakhana case.
The two-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, heard the case in which the defense lawyers, Latif Khosa, Khawaja Haris, Barrister Gohar, and Baber Awan, appeared before the bench on Wednesday.
Sardar Latif Khosa, representing the former Prime Minister, raised crucial points about the trial court’s conduct. He pointed out that the trial court had hastily announced the verdict and awarded the maximum sentence to Imran Khan, despite the pending appeal at the IHC against abolishing his client’s right to defense.
Khosa further argued that the trial court’s decision lacked proper consideration, resulting in a three-year jail term and a fine of Rs100,000. He requested the court to suspend the sentence of the former prime minister.
The court, however, turned down the request and said that the bench would prioritize hearing the stance of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) before proceeding further. Khosa, representing the appellant, courteously requested the court to convene again at the earliest convenience for additional proceedings.
Imran Khan counsel request for daily hearing
Khawaja Haris, another lawyer of the defense counsel, argued that this court had instructed the trial court to decide the case’s maintainability on a daily basis. The trial court reached a verdict on the third day without granting an opportunity to the defense counsel to present its arguments. Haris said that he attempted to present his client’s case before the trial court, but his request was turned down by the court.
The PTI counsel requested the court to hear the case on a daily basis. Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, however, remarked that tomorrow’s proceedings would not be possible as he would be on leave for a medical checkup.
He assured that the case would not be prolonged. Later, the court served notices to respondents and sought records of the case from the trial court. The court subsequently adjourned the case hearing.
