Скачать или смотреть Imran khan Receives Letters From Pakistani’s Under PTI’s Campaign "Letter To Imran Khan"

#ImranKhan #SupremeCourt #LetterToImranKhan

Follow Abdul Qadir:

  / abdulqadirary  

  / abdulqadir.ary  

  / abdulqadir_ary  

Who Is Abdul Qadir Reporter ARY News?

ARY News reporter to Prime Minister of Pakistan, Abdul Qadir brings you the everyday news, mainly covering the decisions taken by Imran Khan and Federal Government. The channel is committed to serve you with insights on various issues pertaining to national interests.

IHC adjourns PTI chief’s plea challenging Toshakhana verdict till Friday

IHC adjourns hearing on Imran's plea against Toshakhana verdict till tomorrow

Supreme Court reiterates decision to resume hearing Imran’s Toshakhana plea after IHC ruling on his conviction

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has adjourned the hearing on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan's petition challenging his conviction in the Toshakhana case till 11.30pm tomorrow (Friday).

After lawyer Khawaja Haris parted ways with the PTI chief's legal team, advocate Latif Khosa represented the PTI chief in the IHC.

Two-member IHC bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Tariq Memhmood Jahangiri conducted the hearing on the PTI chief's plea against the Toshakhana verdict on Thursday.

At the outset of the hearing, Khosa implored the court to suspend the PTI chief’s conviction on three grounds, one of which he said that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Toshakhana case.

He claimed that the sessions court did not have the jurisdiction to hear ECP’s appeal.

“It [ECP] should have sorted out the jurisdiction matter first.”

He said that the electoral body could authorise one of its officers to file a complaint.

In this case, the ECP secretary asked the district election commissioner to file a complaint, he added.

The counsel added that ECP did not seek permission before filing a complaint. At this, ECP lawyer Amjad Parvez maintained that the ECP's permit to file the complaint was on record.

However, Khosa replied that this permission had been given by the election commission secretary, which was not lawful.

The high court sent the petition to the trial court for a new decision, he said, adding that the complaint cannot be sent directly to the sessions judge because it is supposed to be sent to the magistrate first.

"The sessions court cannot hear the complaint directly," he contended.

The PTI chief’s counsel pointed out “flaws” in the trial court's verdict and added that the court the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated as he was not allowed to present witnesses in his defence before the court.

On Tuesday, the IHC bench had adjourned the plea's hearing till today (Thursday) while turning down the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) request for granting them two weeks to get the record.



Khosa contended that there were three grounds pertaining to the suspension of a sentence. “One is a short sentence,” he said. “The second is about the jurisdiction of the court.”

Khosa maintained that a sessions court did not have the jurisdiction to hear ECP’s appeal. “It should have sorted out the jurisdiction problem first.”

He said that according to the definition of the election commission, the body comprises the ECP chief and its members. “According to the law, the ECP has the right to let any of its employees file a complaint.”

“In this case, the election commission secretary authorises the district election commission,” Khosa said. “There is no authorisation by the commission in this case.”

He reiterated that the case was authorised by the election commission secretary. “The authorisation by the election commission bears the signatures of the ECP secretary.”

He went on to say that the sessions court announced the verdict without deciding the matter related to the jurisdiction and authorisation.

Khosa argued the trial court even overlooked the high court’s order and that the trial court’s decision had a lot of mistakes.

“IHC accepted our appeal in the face of the trial court order,” he said. “The high court had sent the case back to the trial court for a decision.”

Khosa highlighted that the high court ordered the trial court to answer the questions raised by the defence in its decision. “The trial court even ignored the orders of the high court,” he said, arguing that a sessions judge cannot hear the ECP’s appeal.

Khosa then spoke about various Supreme Court decisions used as a precedent in this regard.

“The complaint will first go to the magistrate and then the magistrate will forward it to the sessions court.” He clarified that they weren’t even challenging the trial court conducting this trial. The trial session court could do it, just not directly, Khosa added.