Toshakhana case: Court reserves verdict on admissibility of case

ISLAMABAD: A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Monday reserved a verdict on a petition filed by PTI chairman Imran Khan challenging the admissibility of the Toshakhana case, ARY News reported.

Last week, the IHC suspended the non-bailable arrest warrants issued against the former PM by Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal in the graft case related to the purchase and sale of gifts from the Toshakhana till March 13.

Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from both sides, on the petition. He would pronounce the verdict at 3:00 pm.

Imran Khan also sought exemption from appearance in the Toshakhana case owing to security threats.

The court has summoned the PTI chief today for indictment in the case initiated on the complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan in the Toshakhana case.

Read more: Imran Khan once again skips Toshakhana hearing

At the outset of the hearing, PTI chief’s lawyer Khawaja Haris told that his client could not appear in court due to security threats. He said Mr Khan was not deliberately skipping the hearings, adding that it was on the record that he got injured when an assassination attempt was made on him last year.

He informed the judge that petitions had been filed in the Islamabad High Court and Lahore High Court for the appearance of his client via video link.

He also submitted another plea asking the court to declare the petition filed by the ECP seeking criminal proceedings against the PTI chief inadmissible.

Khawaja Haris raised questions on the ECP complaint saying it was not filed by a competent authority. He said it was yet to see in which conditions the ECP could file a complaint. He opposed the indictment of Imran Khan in the case.

Meanwhile, the lawyer of ECP opposed granting exemption to Imran Khan from court apperance. The case is being deliberately delayed, he added.

Earlier, Imran Khan did not want to appear before the court and now he has challenged the admissibility of the plea.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *